A HISTORICAL 
REVIEW OK 
PRIMARY ELECTION, 
taxational RAILWAY 

regulation. 

0 0 BY 00 

EX. PHILIPP 




































































































POLITICAL 
REFORM IN 
WISCONSIN 


A HISTORICAL REVIEW 
OF THE SUBJECTS OF 

Primary Election, 
Taxation and 
Railway Regulation 


Emanuel L. Philipp 

u 

ASSISTED BY 

Edgar T. Wheelock 


PUBLISHED BY 

E. NL. PHILIPP, 
Milwaukee. Wis. 


















I 










# 



MINTED BY THE 

sSf 



CA7A10CUC PRINTERS 
MIIWAUWE E. Wifi. 













r- 


>* 






FOREWORD 


At no period in the history of our state has there been so much 
political agitation as has made the last ten years memorable, and at 
no time, not excepting the stormy years immediately preceding 
and during the civil war, has so much bitterness been injected into 
our politics. To the student of history there is something strange 
and unaccountable in the story of recent political events in Wiscon¬ 
sin. It is an unusual thing to see a community change its public 
policy, the habits of a lifetime, and its leaders, almost in a breath; 
it is an unusual thing also to see a state that always has been re¬ 
garded as one of the most conservative in the union suddenly, as 
if by the influence of some magic power, transformed into one of 
the most advanced, impatient, not to say intemperate “reform” 
states in the entire sisterhood. 

While it may be unduly dignifying the change in the political 
policy effected in Wisconsin at the beginning of the present decade 
to call it a bloodless revolution, it certainly was more than a mere 
change of administration, a substitution of one set of state officers 
■for another of the same party. x\nd it came suddenly, almost 
without warning. Whatever mutterings of discontent previously 
had been heard had all disappeared. While a peaceful calm rested 
upon the state following a campaign in which there had been pro¬ 
testations of harmony and good will on all sides; at a time when 
citizens were looking forward to real progress under the beneficent 
influences of peace and prosperity, the alarm was suddenly sounded, 
signal fires were set blazing upon the hill tops, the dogs of war were 
loosed and the clans were called out in battle array. For what ? 

The history of the nations of the world records many revolu¬ 
tionary movements in the past, but usually there was a satisfactory 
and sufficient cause for them. It is found that people are, as a 
rule, slow to rebel against the constituted authorities without some 
well defined and clearly understood reason. They may protest 
against the enforcement of oppressive laws; they may revolt against 
corruption in public office; they may refuse to be unjustly taxed; or 
there may be other sins of omission or commission on the part of 
the public servants or rulers, as the case may be, which have be¬ 
come intolerable and which explain the citizens’ determination to 
have a political house-cleaning for the general public good. 

But that was not the case in Wisconsin. The student of history 
will look in vain in the records of this state for proof of corruption 
in public office, for evidence of public scandals of any character wor¬ 
thy of consideration. He will find no statutes that were oppressive; 
he will find no indications of extravagance or waste of public re¬ 
sources by state officials; he will not find statistics to prove that the 
people were overburdened by taxation for the support of the state 

3 



4 


Foreword. 


administration, for there had been but one state tax for general 
purposes for nearly twenty years. 

A careful and unprejudiced investigation of the facts of history 
leads inevitably to the conclusion that there was no public necessity 
• for the political disturbance that accompanied the change of ad¬ 
ministration in January, 1901. The political issues fought out in 
this state and which engendered so much bitterness, so much intem¬ 
perate discussion, so much hatred and malice, did not involve any 
vital principles of government that must be conserved. The contest 
was merely a struggle for leadership and political power. The “is¬ 
sues” were the means whereby their inventors hoped to attain their 
ends. They succeeded. 

This assertion is sufficiently justified by the experiences of the 
state under the laws enacted for the reformation of our statutes dur¬ 
ing the so-called “progressive” period. Certain laws have been 
amended and other laws have been replaced by statutes radically 
differing from the originals. The promises to make changes in 
the laws have been kept to the letter. But the benefits that were 
to be derived; the advantages that would, it was promised, follow 
the enactment of these “progressive” measures as a necessary and 
logical effect following a given cause, have not materialized. 

The publication of the outline of recent historical events con¬ 
tained in the following pages is not designed to revive factional 
disputes, which were too bitter to be pleasant, or to kindle anew 
the fires of discord. But it is believed the people of the state are 
now in a condition of mental repose that will enable them to run 
over again the data relating to that period without danger to them¬ 
selves or their neighbors. By now printing the truth about certain 
legislation, its origin, the means employed to secure its enactment, 
and the effect of the laws in operation, citizens will be enabled to 
weigh the results of the contest in which they have engaged and 
learn for themselves whether the “reform” secured has been worth 
what it cost. 

Did it pay to drive from public life prominent servants who 
had won distinction for themselves and their state? 

Did it pay to embitter neighbor against neighbor, brother against 
brother, and friend against friend for the sake of enacting the laws 
we now have that would not have been passed in the ordinary 
course of events without a fight? 

In preparing this historical review it has been the intention to 
cover the three important subjects of legislation as fully as was 
practicable in their proper order. The first subject treated is the 
primary election law. To the end that the progress made prior to 
the presentation of the bill abolishing all caucuses and conventions 
may be understood, the evolutionary movement that led up to the 
enactment of the Milwaukee primary law and the subsequent exten¬ 
sion of that law to the entire state has been traced step by step. The 


Foreword. 


5 


effect of the direct primary law in operation has been analyzed, and 
the fruitless attempt to strengthen a law that has sorely disap¬ 
pointed its most sincere friends and one that has been repudiated 
on more than one occasion by its authors and principal champions, 
are considered. 

Following the primary election legislation is a review of the 
history of taxation legislation which resulted in the creation of the 
state tax commission, the enactment of important taxation laws 
and the general reform, so far as was possible in the circumstances, 
of the taxation system. 'Great progress has been made in this 
field of political activity—so much will be shown beyond question. 
But that progress has not been made on the public platform, at the 
hustings, or in the columns of the newspapers. The men who are 
entitled to credit for a greater part of the advance made along tax 
reform lines are the men who have, with painstaking care, patient 
effort, deep study and an unselfish devotion to the cause in which 
they were enlisted, accomplished results. These men have left 
their marks indelibly on the pages of Wisconsin’s history. 

The third and last part of the review is devoted to the events 
which led up to the enactment of laws for the regulation of trans¬ 
portation companies. There is no disposition on the part of the 
writer of this history to fly to the defense of the transportation 
companies. This is a history—not an apology or a defense. But 
there has been so much matter printed about the regulation of cor¬ 
porations; there have been so many extravagant statements concern¬ 
ing public benefits that would be derived from the enactment of 
laws designed to place the corporations under a more strict super¬ 
vision by public officers; there have been so many unjust and 
uncalled for charges laid at the door of public men who did not 
agree with the radical “progressives” as to the exact form railroad 
legislation should take ; and there have been so many and such 
extravagant claims of credit supposed to be due for the passage 
of the laws now on the statute books, it is but just and right to all 
parties that the facts should be given to the public. 

As has been said, this history is not the outgrowth of a desire 
to revive past disputes. The controversy is ended. The citizens 
of Wisconsin have now settled down to await the reward of their 
labors. They have paid the price—will the progressive leaders 
“deliver the goods?” Have they delivered the goods? If not, 
why not? There has been time for the primary election law to 
scatter its blessings over the state: has it done so? There has 
been ample time for the new taxation system to reduce the taxes 
of those who were overburdened: have taxes anywhere been reduced ? 
There has been ample time to materialize all or most of the benefits 
promised as the result of railroad rate regulation by the state: can 
you find those benefits in your business? These are some of the 
questions that will be discussed in this review. 









PART ONE. 



THE EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION OF THE PRIMARY. 


CHAPTER I. 

The Direct Primary. 

The direct primary principle is advocated by citizens who be¬ 
lieve in sticking as close to the pure democratic form of government 
as is possible. They believe the citizen should never delegate, his 
rights and powers as a voter to another when it is possible for him 
to perform his duties and exercise his privileges himself. They 
believe the right to vote for candidates for office necessarily carries 
with it the right to assist in nominating those candidates; that the 
first step in the exercise of the elective franchise is as important as 
the second; that the right to cast the first ballot in making a direct 
choice at the primary is as sacred' as the right to cast the second 
ballot on election day. 

The motives of the men who, during the last thirty years, have 
publicly advocated primary election reforms in the several states 
should not be called in question. In the main these progressives, 
as they like to be called, have been sincere and unselfish in their 
devotion to a movement believed by them to be designed to purify 
politics, to improve the personnel of the office holding class, to 
dethrone the political boss and put his “gang” out of business, and 
to encourage the better element of the citizenry to actively partici¬ 
pate in primaries and elections. Many of the advocates of the 
movement have been members of that “better element” about which 
so much has been said and written during the discussions that have 
attended the progress along reform lines. With certain glaring 
exceptions, they have been men in whom the outward and visible 
sign of an inward office hunger was not too painfully conspicuous. 
They simply wanted to arrange the nominating machinery so that 
men of their own kind would be encouraged to take an active part in 
politics. 

Years ago it was argued in the public press and periodicals that 
good people did not attend mass caucuses because they were con¬ 
vinced the results of those meetings always were determined in 
advance; that the election of delegates to conventions was “fixed 
up by some job or ring influence.” Also, it was asserted that the 
better element would not attend political caucuses in the evening or 

7 




8 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


at any hour “at the risk of encountering a crowd, or being hustled 
or jostled by intoxicated men.” That there was foundation in 
fact for the statements discrediting the mass caucus in large cities 
does not require argument. Men who know to what extent the 
hoodlum element carried their excesses at the primaries—and the 
elections as well—in metropolitan cities and congested districts, 
will not make excuses for the abuses complained of or attempt to 
palliate them. 

The result was that the complaints, persistently but not too 
clamorously made at first, had a tendency to prick the law makers 
and party leaders to activity and tentative experiments in primary 
reforms were inaugurated. This was a wholesome movement and 
it did not call for an acrimonious controversy, as politicians as well 
as private citizens lent their aid to the effort to remove the defects 
complained of by judiciously treating the cause. As a matter of 
fact, from the first voluntary changes in the method of conducting 
caucuses made by party leaders in Wisconsin before any law on the 
subject had been enacted, down to the time of the violent outbreak 
of controversy in 1901, there was little if any public interest mani¬ 
fested in the movement. Yet noteworthy progress was made in the 
betterment of conditions under which the primaries were held. 

In California the primary .election idea was recognized by law 
as early as 1866, and in 1872 that recognition was formally incor¬ 
porated into the codes. Any party or association of electors in any 
political subdivision of the state was authorized by law to hold a 
primary election for the nomination of local candidates and the 
election of delegates to represent them in conventions called for 
larger districts in which the voters at the primary were entitled to 
participate. Other states followed in the footsteps of California. 
Early in the last quarter of the nineteenth century the city of 
Baltimore regularly elected its municipal officers from candidates 
nominated by direct vote of the people of that city without the 
intervention of party conventions. In Baltimore it was reported 
that the experiment was eminently satisfactory in its results. At a 
meeting of the Young Men’s Democratic club of Yew York, held 
in that city in December, 1881, it was asserted of the Baltimore pri¬ 
maries that: 

“There the primary votes directly for the candidate and the polls 
are open all day. The result has been the extirpation of the political 
bosses and an extraordinarily full vote. In 1876, when all the municipal 
offices were to be filled, 6,200 democrats out of 7,500 registered voted on 
the nominations at the polls at the primaries. If we could obtain any¬ 
thing approaching to the same proportion of the party vote on nomina¬ 
tions of both sides in this city, what a gain it would be!” 

On the other hand, the experiment in California was not so 
satisfactory. A citizen of San Francisco complains, in a letter to 
the Nation Magazine of January 28, 1882, that, while the direct 
vote primary, when held in the rural districts, uniformly elected a 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


9 


superior class of delegates and nominated good men for office, the 
result of such elections in the city was that invariably dissensions 
followed and dissatisfaction was manifested. 

Subsequent trials of the primary election plan were made in 
Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and other states. 
In each case, however, the option was given to the party managers 
to call a primary or to nominate by the old caucus and convention 
plan. It will be noticed that practically all the early experiments 
with the plan of nominating candidates by direct vote of the mem¬ 
bers of the party were made in what may be called one party 
states, and it was the dominant party that made use of the primary 
election to nominate its candidates. The minority party in each 
of the states mentioned had no use for restraints imposed by a 
primary law. They had no contests for nominations. Their 
principle trouble was in persuading citizens to accept nominations 
at their hands to be followed by certain failure of election without 
any attending glory to take the poison from the sting of defeat or to 
repay them for the loss of time and the expense incidental to the 
campaign. 

All this time experience, growth, development, were doing their 
work and prominent men who were known as practical politicians, 
as well as public spirited private citizens, were becoming more and 
more interested in a movement to devise a workable plan for regu¬ 
lating the primaries. It may be said all parties and all classes of 
citizens contributed to some extent toward the solution of the prob¬ 
lem, for the democrats in strong democratic states and cities, and 
republicans in sections where they were in control by reason of their 
majorities, made changes in the primaries, in many cases without 
a statutory urge, because they believed the matters pertaining to 
party government should be left to the control of party members. 
In other cases, when it was found that the authority of law would 
aid the movement, statutes were enacted giving to party committees 
a legal status, defining their duties and making provisions for the 
government of primaries. The progress made was purely evolu¬ 
tionary in its character and the changes were so natural and logical, 
following in one another’s footsteps in so orderly a manner, they did 
not cause surprise or excite bitter contentions. 


10 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER II. 

The Keogh Law of 1891. 

The first attempt in Wisconsin to regulate primaries by law was 
the enactment of what was known as the Keogh law, chapter 439, 
laws of 1891. This act applied to Milwaukee county only, and was 
placed in the statute books through the efforts of the Milwaukee 
delegation in the legislature. No platform pledges had been made 
to reform the primaries; no campaign had been conducted in the 
interests of such reform; no public demand made through the news¬ 
papers had furnished the inspiration or pointed the way; no meet¬ 
ings were held ; no bands were employed to please or torture the 
public ear, as the case might be; no impassioned orators appealed 
to the electorate to rise in its might and hurl from places of power 
and trust the faithless caucus manipulators. The impossibility of 
continuing to do party business in an orderly manner at mass 
caucuses in congested municipal wards had become apparent, and 
the practice already had been partially abandoned. In a quiet wav, 
therefore, the representatives of Milwaukee voters attempted to 
crystallize into a concrete plan the nebulous ideas that had 
ruled in the government of the primaries for a number of years. 

In country districts, villages and small cities the mass caucus 
had not fallen altogether into disrepute at that time. Contests 
there had been, it is true, and some sharp ones at that, but as a 
rule township and ward officers nominated and delegates elected in 
rural primaries and the smaller municipalities were acknowledged 
to fairly represent a majority of the parties holding the caucuses. 
In some sections of the state, like the mining and lumbering regions 
of the north, complaint was made that at times caucuses were 
packed and ruled by mob law, and contests in conventions based on 
charges of that character were not unknown. But these instances 
were the exception, not the rule. 

On the other hand, party managers and public spirited citizens 
had learned that the members of the parties in a thickly settled ward 
could not meet in mass caucuses and by a viva voce vote give ex¬ 
pression to their choice with any assurance that the will of the legal 
majority would prevail. Where lines were sharply drawn between 
conflicting interests it frequently occurred that one or the other 
side would gain an unfair advantage by introducing nonresident 
strikers and heelers, members of other parties, toughs and hood¬ 
lums, to the disgust of respectable citizens who would thereby be 
driven away from the caucuses. In seeking a remedy for this con¬ 
dition, the party leaders and committeemen already had adopted a 
rule in many instances that party primaries were to be held open 
for at least an hour and voting was to be done by ballot. This was 
a step in the right direction, but it did not go far enough, 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


11 


The Keogh bill, No. 136A, was introduced by that veteran demo¬ 
cratic legislator, Edward Keogh of Milwaukee, who consented to 
allow the influence of his name to be used to the advantage of the 
measure, the democratic party having secured an overwhelming 
majority at the memorable “Bennett law election” the previous fall. 
Mr. Keogh had served one term in the state senate and was, at 
the time this bill was introduced, representing his district in the 
assembly for the twelfth time. He made it thirteen before he re¬ 
tired permanently to private life. But while he consented to father 
the bill, his age and the dignity of his position as the oldest member 
were such that he left to the younger members of the delegation the 
real work incidental to the passage of the measure. As it hap¬ 
pened, Michael Kruszka, then in his first term, full of hard work, 
enthusiasm, and a desire to do something worth while, became the 
dry nurse of the measure. 

The bill was first referred to the judiciary committee, made up 
of six democrats and three republicans. The democrats were John 
Winans of Bock county, chairman; James D. Watson, Fond du Lac; 
Joshua E. Dodge, Bacine; Neal Brown, Marathon; Conrad Ivrez and 
H. J. Desmond, Milwaukee. The republicans were Orrin T. Wil¬ 
liams, Milwaukee; L. H. Mead, Washburn, Charles F. Osborn, La¬ 
fayette and Green. 

This committee failed to discover any constitutional obstacles 
to the passage of the bill but declined to assume responsibility for 
it and asked that it be referred to the Milwaukee delegation, which 
was done. Milwaukee was represented that year by the following 
members of the lower house: 

First district, Humphrey J. Desmond, D. 

Second district, William J. Friebrantz, B. 

Third district, Edward Keogh, D. 

Fourth district, Orrin T. Williams, B. 

Fifth District, Conrad Krez, D. 

Sixth district, William Pierron, B. 

Seventh district, Charles H. Anson, B. 

Eighth district, Henry Schuetz, D. 

Ninth district, Philip Schmitz, Jr., D. 

Tenth district, John Horn, D. 

Eleventh district, Ambrose McGuigan, D. 

Twelfth district, Michael Kruszka, D. 

After deliberating on the measure from February 27 until 
April 16, this delegation finally presented a report, Mr. Williams 
dissenting, recommending certain amendments and the passage of 
the bill when amended. As it applied only to Milwaukee county 
the delegation was a determining factor in the situation and the 
bill w r as amended as suggested and passed. Action in the senate was 
expedited by the Milwaukee members of that body, John J. Kempf 
and Paul Bechtner, republicans, and Herman Kroeger and Chris- 


12 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


tion Ivoenitzer, democrats, who gave the measure their unqualified 
indorsement. The bill was passed, signed by Gov. George W. Peck, 
also a Milwaukee man, and became a law by publication. 

This statute illustrates, better than columns of newspaper arti¬ 
cles could have done, the uninformed condition of public sentiment 
at the time it was passed and the stage to which the primary reform 
idea had advanced. The law prescribed how a citizen was to pro¬ 
ceed in securing a “nomination to any office to be voted for at 
the election at which he desired to be a candidate/’ and explained 
how he might have his name printed on the official primary ballot, 
which was. to be provided by the party committees,. He was re¬ 
quired to file with the county clerk “a written notice specifying his 
name, age, residence, giving street and number if possible, occupa¬ 
tion, nationality, and the office to which he desires to be nominated, 
which such notice shall he indorsed by at least ten qualified electors 
and freeholders of the ward or township in which he resides; and 
any such notice not so indorsed shall not be received or filed by such 
county clerk/ 5 Caucuses were to be held on the same day for each 
party and be kept open for a stated period. 

On the face of this law a direct vote was required for all candi¬ 
dates for city and county offices in Milwaukee county. Conventions 
and delegates were not mentioned in the law or given legal recogni¬ 
tion in any manner. While they were not specifically abolished or 
forbidden in terms, no other reading can be given the Iveogh law 
except that it required a nomination by direct vote of every candi¬ 
date in the country. 

But the thought of abolishing conventions had doubtless not 
entered the minds of the men who were responsible for the enact¬ 
ment of this statute. At all events, the only effect of its operation 
was to cause delegates to conventions to be classed as officers and 
their names were placed on the official primary ballots and their 
elections held under the conditions that obtained in the selection 
of ward and township officers. It did not occur to the members 
of the legislature or the people of Milwaukee county that the Keogh 
law had abolished caucuses and conventions and substituted there¬ 
for a sweeping primary election. But such was the case, 
nevertheless. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


18 


CHAPTER III. 

The Development of the Milwaukee Primary Law. 

All experience teaches that first attempts at legislation in a 
new field, where precedents are wanting and the framers of the 
proposed statute have only their desire to improve conditions and 
their native wit to guide them, usually fall far short of perfection. 
There have been few men in the history of the race who could draft 
a legislative act that would answer the purpose desired without sub¬ 
sequent changes. Even when the matter under consideration is one 
that has been mulled over many times before, it is the rule that 
many an i must be dotted and many a t crossed before the last 
word is said on the subject. 

This was the case with the Keogh law. It was a crude effort at 
best, and the result of its trial was that the first bill introduced 
m the assembly in 1893 was for its repeal. This bill was No. 1A, 
and it was speedily passed and became chapter 7, laws of 1893. 

But the reform effort did not stop here. Milwaukee political 
leaders and business men were not satisfied to go back to the old 
system. A new bill was introduced in the senate by Michael 
Kruszka, who had been promoted to that body by his constituents. 
This bill was numbered 144S, and upon its passage and publication 
it became chapter 249, laws of 1893, and was called the Kruszka 
law. Gov. George W. Peck’s name appears on the original bill on 
file in Madison. 

In this statute, which, like its predecessor, applied only to Mil¬ 
waukee county, some progress was attained and conventions and 
delegates were specifically recognized. Provision was made for the 
organization of township, ward and county committees; for the 
holding of township and ward caucuses at which local officers were 
to be nominated and delegates elected to district, city and county 
conventions; primaries were to be conducted like elections, to be 
in charge of officers appointed by the committees, and votes were 
to be canvassed and returns made as in the case of regular elections. 
Only qualified electors were permitted to' participate in these 
caucuses and penalties were prescribed for all fraudulent voting 
or attempts to commit fraud. 

This bill was also referred to the Milwaukee delegation, which 
assumed all responsibility for it, and a new law thus came into 
being and was given a trial in the subsequent campaigns. 

When the time came to test the law of 1893 the secretary of 
the Milwaukee republican county committee, Dr. W. A. Fricke, 
who was a stickler for order and method and a believer in perfect 
party organization, found that his work was cut out for him if 
he was to comply with all its provisions. Not having been built 
up and fitted together piece by piece, as the result of mature experi- 


14 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


ence and educated statecraft, it was found that the act was equally 
as valuable as an indication of what should be done and what 
avoided in framing a new law as it was as a statute for the regula¬ 
tion of the primaries. The republicans of Milwaukee county had, 
as the result of an attempt to comply with the Keogh law of 1891, 
completed a county organization that was the most perfect of any 
that had been in existence up to that time. In 1893 the committee 
had reorganized under the Kruszka law and was in still better 
shape. Now, in order to comply with the new law as far as possible, 
forms and blanks were prepared by the secretary and an effort 
made to follow out in detail every provision made for the govern¬ 
ment of the primaries. This was found to be a difficult problem 
and it never was satisfactorily solved. 

But the experience gained at the spring election in 1894 was 
worth all the trouble and money it cost, as it enabled the committee 
to adopt a set of regulations for use at the primaries in the fall of 
that year that proved to be of value when the time came to frame 
a.third experimental law in the winter of 1895. 

The history of bill number 329S, 1895, is an interesting one. 
The republican party had once more elected a majority of the two 
houses of the legislature and Gov. William H. Upham presided in 
the executive chamber. Senator Kruszka, still in the senate and 
still interested in caucus reforms, felt that it would be better to 
have the new bill drawn by him introduced by a member of the 
dominant party. In this emergency Senator Thomas B. Mills of 
Superior was appealed to for help and he introduced the measure 
and championed it, although it still remained a local Milwaukee 
bill. It was referred to the committee on privileges and elections 
on Feb. 12 and slumbered in the committee box until April 4. 

Meanwhile there had been many conferences on the. subject be¬ 
tween interested parties, as others besides the original promoters 
of the movement had become interested. Dr. Fricke, in particular, 
representing the Milwaukee county republican committee, was 
active in these conferences. The forms and blanks used at the 
spring caucuses of the republican party and the carefully prepared 
regulations drawn up for use in the autumn of that year were 
brought into the conferences. The result was a substitute bill that 
more nearly attained the object sought than any previous effort had 
done, as it represented the best thought of leading men in and out 
of politics in the state at that time. This substitute was reported 
by the committee, passed both houses, was signed by Gov. Upham, 
and became chapter 288, laws of 1895. 

By this act caucuses were defined and directions given for hold¬ 
ing all such meetings under the provisions of this statute; all other 
gatherings for the purpose of nominating candidates for office or 
electing delegates to conventions were declared illegal and forbidden. 
Only qualified electors of the party holding the caucus were entitled 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


15 


to vote, and punishment was prescribed for all who voted or at¬ 
tempted to vote unlawfully. The mode of electing county commit¬ 
teemen was prescribed and the duties of those bodies were defined. 
Caucuses were to be held in regular election booths to be kept open 
in city wards from 4 to 9 o’clock p. m., and in towns and villages 
from 3 to 6 o’clock p. m. County committees were to appoint 
annually on the first of February three electors in each ward, 
township, and village, to act as inspectors. Caucuses were not to 
be held more than two days before the conventions at which the 
delegates to be elected were to serve. All local officers were to 
be nominated by a direct vote by ballot at the caucuses and votes 
were to be canvassed and returns made as at elections. The penal 
statutes applying to all elections were made a part of the law. 

One of the important features of this act was the provision 
made for placing candidates before the primary, a matter that has 
caused considerable controversy since the primary law now in force 
went into effect. The expense incidental to the circulation of nomi¬ 
nating papers and much of the labor and cost of ante-primary cam¬ 
paigns were avoided by holding a preliminary meeting at which 
names were suggested to be voted for at the regular primary. These 
preliminary meetings were called by the county committee and were 
held four days before the date set for the caucus. The meetings 
were regularly called to order by the local inspectors, a clerk was 
elected, and any qualified elector could be placed in nomination bv 
the mere suggestion of his name. The clerk of the meeting made 
a record of the names suggested in the order in which they were 
presented and certified the list to the county committee, -which body 
prepared tickets for the primaries. No other ticket could be used at 
the caucuses and the voter was required to mark out all the names 
of candidates for whom he did not want to vote. The board of 
registration was directed to furnish a list of registered voters to all 
inspectors of primaries, and voters whose names did not appear on 
those lists w r ere required to swear in their votes. 

As this law applied also to Milwaukee county only, the support 
that secured its enactment came mainly from that county. By this 
time, however, there were leaders in other sections of the state who 
were becoming interested in the movement. They had watched de¬ 
velopments in the Milwaukee primaries and were preparing to take 
steps to enlarge the scope of any workable law that gave promise 
of assuring clean primaries and a full and free expression of the 
will of a majority of the party voters at such meetings. The mem¬ 
bers of the Milwaukee delegation in the legislature in 1895 were: 
Senators James C. Officer, William H. Austin and Charles T. 
Fisher, republicans; Oscar Altpeter and Michael Ivruszka, demo¬ 
crats. In the assembly: 

First district—H. S. Dodge (R). 

Second district—George R. Mahoney (D). 


16 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


Third district—G. J. Jeske (R). 

Fourth district—Frank Anson (R). 

Fifth district—Albert Waller (R). 

Sixth district—R. Klabunde (R). 

Seventh district—Edward C. Notbohm (R). 

Eighth district—E. R. Stillman (R). 

Ninth district—C. Winter (R). 

Tenth district—Theodore Prochnow (R). 

Eleventh district—Chris. Paulus (R). 

Twelfth district—Andrew Bonsel (D). 

Thirteenth district—B. A. Eaton (R). 

Fourteenth district—E. I). Hoyt (R). 

When the legislature of 1897 met at Madison the people of Mil¬ 
waukee county had made two trials of the new primary law and 
they were pleased with it. Not only were the citizens of the 
metropolis of the state, where the greatest need of primary regula¬ 
tion had been felt, content to continue working under the new 
system, but leading men of other sections who had taken occasion 
to observe the operations of the plan were convinced that it was a 
substantial, workable reform, and were in favor of extending the 
advantages it afforded to other cities. „ 

For the reasons given a new bill was prepared and introduced, 
making such minor changes in the statute as experience dictated 
and providing for extending it to “all caucuses and meetings of 
political parties held for the purpose of nominating candidates, or 
choosing delegates to assemble in convention to nominate any 
person for public office, to be voted for at any general or municipal 
election held in all the cities in this state, except as hereinafter 
provided.” The exception mentioned was placed at the end of the 
first section and reads as follows: 

“The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to municipal elections 
held in cities of the third and fourth class until such cities have adopted 
the same, as provided in section 11 of this act.” 

Section 11 explained how the question of the adoption of the 
plan for making nominations by ballot at primaries was to be sub¬ 
mitted to a popular vote in cities of the third and fourth class. 

The principal amendments made in 1897 to the law as it then 
existed, and as it applied to Milwaukee county were: (a) The 
hours during which the caucuses were to be kept open in city wards 
were from 12 m. to 8 p. m. (b) At preliminary meetings the 
names of persons suggested as candidates to be voted for at the 
primaries were to be written on slips of paper and deposited in a 
box. After nominations had closed, the names were to be with¬ 
drawn from the box and placed on a list by the secretary in the 
order in which they were drawn. In that order they were to be 
printed on the official ballots. 

This measure, which was senate bill No. 58, was introduced bv 

7 7 ' V 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


17 


Senator Thomas B. Mills of Superior, and met with little or no 
opposition in either house, so unanimous was the sentiment in favor 
of the effort then being made to find a way by which the initial, or 
fundamental, meetings of party members could be made as free 
from objectionable features as possible, thereby encouraging a full 
attendance and an untrammeled expression of opinion in the selec¬ 
tion of party candidates. 

Up to this time the men who subsequently became known as 
primary election reformers had taken no hand in the work of fram¬ 
ing the laws to better conditions. The movement had been an 
evolutionary one, pure and simple, and a majority of the leaders 
whose pushful energy and persistent determination had carried it 
to its then stage of development would not be called politicians, if 
a strict classification were to be attempted. Many who aided them 
were plain business men who had been sent to the legislature, not 
because they were reformers, but because they were believed to be 
men whose brains were capable of doing good, plain thinking. Also, 
there were business and professional men who held no official posi¬ 
tions who gave the movement their moral support. 

The final step in the primary evolutionary movement was the 
passage of assembly bill No. 126, introduced by Louis A. Lange, 
a Fond du Lac democratic newspaper publisher, which was approved 
by Gov. Edward Scofield May 3, 1899, and became chapter 341 of 
the laws of that year. Up to this point there had been steady, sub¬ 
stantial progress from year to year, progress dictated by sound 
judgment and marked by experiments in every campaign. It was * 
a far cry from the Keogh law of 1891 to the Lange bill of 1899. 
Important were the changes that had been made, but the movement 
had been evolutionary in its character from beginning to end. 

The law of 1899 extended the operation of the Milwaukee law 
to the entire state so far as it was believed to be wise at the time. 
It was made to apply, in a modified form, to all towns, cities and 
villages. It was essentially an experiment, the purpose being to 
discover how a law, originally framed to meet the demands oi 
a city where congested wards were to be found and where the voting 
population of any ward was as numerous as that of an ordinary city 
in the interior of the state, would work in the rural districts and 
villages. It had been successfully tried in many of the cities of the 
second, third and fourth class. The question was, would the rural 
communities take kindly to it and would it prove beneficial in such 
places ? 

No reasonable- man can doubt for an instant that, had this 
movement been permitted to continue, there would have been steady 
but gradual improvement in the primary laws until approximate 
perfection would have been attained in statutes that could be made 
to work smoothly and justly, because they would have been based 
on ripe experience—as were the statutes already in force. But 


18 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


t 

this was not to be. Already the revolutionary movement had been 
foreshadowed by the introduction of a sweeping direct primary elec¬ 
tion bill in 1897 by Assemblyman William T. Lewis of Racine, in 
public addresses by Robert M. La Follette, a tentative bill prepared 
for publication and publicly circulated by Hon. L. J. Nash of Mani¬ 
towoc, and a bill introduced in the assembly by Gen. George E. 
Bryant in 1899 as a suggestion of what Mr. La Follette then ad¬ 
vocated. In other states the sentiment in favor of a more radical 
reform measure w r as spreading. Meetings of reformers were held, 
states were falling into line, the Outlook Magazine, edited then as 
now by the Rev. Lyman Abbott, was conducting an energetic cam¬ 
paign, and the demand was becoming general that all conventions 
for the nomination of candidates for public office be abolished by 
law. California, Oregon, Minnesota, and Illinois had each adopted 
or were about to adopt the direct primary system. There was a 
strong sentiment in New York in favor of the same plan and in 
other states the campaign was progressing satisfactorily—from the 
viewpoint of the reformers. 

No specific complaints have ever been registered against the 
law of 1899. Under that law Robert M. La Follette was nominated 
for governor of Wisconsin by the republican party in 1900. The 
story of the revolution that followed is entitled to treatment by 
itself. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


19 


CHAPTER IV. 

How the Direct Primary Idea Was Born, Grew, and Flour¬ 
ished in Wisconsin. 

There is much to be regretted by the people of Wisconsin in the 
history made during the bitter factional feud that broke out in the 
winter of 1901 in Madison. As is always the case when two wings 
of a political party engage in a heated controversy in which the per¬ 
sonal element plays a conspicuous part, neither side was entirely 
blameless in this instance. There were men in both factions who 
at heart were actuated by the highest motives, whose personal integ¬ 
rity should not be questioned, but whose acts on occasions were col¬ 
ored to some extent by their surroundings and associations. Sincere 
men who tried to do their duty were misunderstood and misjudged 
by others, equally sincere, who in their turn were misunderstood and 
misjudged. The trouble at Madison was that the legislative and 
executive wires were crossed and the wholesome currents of reason 
and wisdom were short circuited. 

The consequence was that the advancement the people had a 
right to expect from that and succeeding legislatures was made im¬ 
possible. Reforms that had been well started on the road to ultimate 
success were side tracked indefinitely. Measures that required the 
wisest counsel of all members of the legislature to make them work¬ 
able and effective for good became the subjects of acrimonious de¬ 
bate and the best results were not attained. Undue weight fre¬ 
quently was given to matters of relatively trifling importance; fac¬ 
tional advantage was sought on occasions by perniciously active 
partisans at the sacrifice of the best interests of the state, and the 
more conservative members of both parties to the controversy were 
at times swept into the heat of battle against their better judgment, 
which was held in abeyance for the time being. 

It was not the proposition to reform the primaries that brought 
about the unfortunate outbreak of hostilities beginning in 1901 and 
continuing through successive campaigns. As has been shown, the 
work of improving the primaries, begun in 1891, had progressed 
steadily from that time through successive biennial sessions of the 
legislature down to the year 1899. The old mass caucus had served 
its day and purpose and had been summarily deposited in that gulf 
into which are dumped all worn out institutions that have outlived 
their usefulness. 

The first step toward the entire abolition of conventions as well 
as caucuses in this state was made in 1897 by the introduction of 
bill No. 580A by Assemblyman William T. Lewis of Racine, a man¬ 
ufacturer and business man, not a professional politician. Mr. 
Lewis was not the author of the “Lewis Primary Election bill,” as 
it was afterward called. When he came to Madison there were two 


20 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 

subjects in which he was interested and for which he hoped to secure 
a respectful hearing. One was convict labor, he being opposed to 
allowing the inmates of the state prison to compete with free labor; 
the other was the direct nomination of all candidates for office by 
the voters at primary elections. 

Shortly after the opening of the legislature Mr. Lewis called 
upon Mr^La Follette, then a private citizen practicing law in Mad¬ 
ison, having failed in his effort to secure the republican nomination 
for governor the previous year. Mr. Lewis presented the two sub¬ 
jects mentioned to Mr. La Follette, explained his understanding 
of them, and asked La Follette to draw two bills to be presented to 
the legislature covering those subjects. Mr. La Follette replied 
that he was so busy at that time that it would be impossible for him 
to comply with the request, and declined to undertake the task. 

Mr. Lewis then laid the matter before another Madison attorney 
with better results, as he did secure a bill relating to convict labor, 
which he introduced. Some time later the attorney came to Mr. 
Lewis with the draft of a primary bill, and that, too, was introduced 
and became the Lewis primary election bill of 1897. It provided 
for holding primaries on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in 
September of each election year and the nomination of all candidates 
for public office by a direct vote of the party members. The pri¬ 
maries of all parties w r ere to be held at the same time and place, but 
they were to be in fact separate primaries, as each party was to have 
its own inspectors, ballots, and ballot boxes, and the voters were ex¬ 
pected to state their preferences as to parties and to participate in 
the nomination of the candidates of the party thus selected, and no 
other. On April 8 this measure was indefinitely postponed on rec¬ 
ommendation of the committee on privileges and elections, the com¬ 
mittee that reported favorably on the Mills primary bill already 
referred to. 

The second bill to require nominations by a direct vote was intro¬ 
duced in the legislature in 1899 by Gen. George E. Bryant, after¬ 
ward chairman of the republican state central committee. This 
measure was almost identical in its provisions with the Lewis bill 
and it met the same fate at the session that passed the Lange law 
extending the scope of the Milwaukee law to the entire state in a 
modified form. 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is fair to presume 
that the Lewis bill was Mr. La Follette’s first introduction to the 
primary idea. Up to that time, although he frequently had ap¬ 
peared as the champion of reforms of one kind or another, he had 
never proposed the nomination of candidates by a direct vote. He 
had been defeated in the convention of 1896, an event calculated to 
make him resentful and cause him to meditate revenge, but it was a 
year after he had talked with Mr. Lewis that he first gave public 
expression to his wish to do away with conventions altogether. The 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


21 


Lewis bill was introduced in the assembly on Feb. 10, 1897, and in 
March, 1898, Mr. La Follette made his famous Ann Arbor speech 
before the students of the University of Michigan, in which he took 
an unequivocal stand in favor of the abolition of all caucuses and 
conventions and the nomination of candidates for state, congres¬ 
sional, legislative, judicial and local offices by a direct vote of the 
electors, using the Australian ballot. He did not present an outline 
of a measure to be adopted, but contented himself with proving to 
his own satisfaction that official and corporate corruption, of which 
he painted a lurid picture, could only be banished from our states 
by the application in some practical form to be devised by legisla¬ 
tures of the broad principle of direct nominations. This address 
was printed in the Chicago Tribune at the time and caused consid¬ 
erable comment. Also it was delivered before the students of the 
University of Chicago and on every occasion where Mr. La Follette 
could secure an audience. 

The same year, Mr. La Follette became a candidate for the re¬ 
publican nomination for governor a second time and once more he 
was defeated in the state convention. The campaign was a warm 
one and the attacks made on Gov. Scofield by Mr. La Follette’s par¬ 
tisans were not calculated to induce the people of Wisconsin to trust 
the fiery aspirant for gubernatorial honors and his partisans with 
the government of the state. 

The convention of delegates did, however, adopt a platform in 
which appeared a plank that has since been interpreted to mean that 
the primary election idea was popular and had been promised to the 

people of the state. The plank read as follows: 

“Recognizing that the present caucus and convention law is not 
free from defects, we favor such legislation as will secure to every 
citizen the freest expression of his choice in the selection of candi¬ 
dates.” 

The republican party, aided by democrats, had been endeavoring 
for eight years to remedy the defects in the caucus and convention 
system, and they were in a fair way to succeed. 

But it must be acknowledged that to Robert M. La Follette 
should be given whatever credit is due for the ultimate adoption of 
the primary election system in Wisconsin. While others may have 
originated the plan and dreamed over its success at some future 
time, he took the matter in both hands and went out to cultivate the 
crop, even if he did not sow all the seed. As a platform orator he 
has strong points. He is intense, he is dramatic, he is forceful. He 
faces his audiences with flashing eye and a forty-man power energy. 
He convinces by sheer force of eloquence—not spontaneous, but care¬ 
fully studied, and therefore effective. His hearers are swept along 
with a flood of words and sentences which they have no time and 
usually no disposition to weigh and analyze. 

When such a man starts out to popularize a plan or idea he gets 
a hearing. Mr. La Follette based his advocacy of the direct vote 


22 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


plan of making nominations for office on the allegation that conven¬ 
tions invariably were machine ruled and that the boss, omnipresent 
in the political world and ranging in degree from the little minnow 
bosses in the townships and wards to the big whale boss that gov¬ 
erned the state, could be overthrown in no other way. He was par¬ 
ticularly severe on the railway corporations, and their officials, who 
were supposed to control party conventions with the help of the 
bosses, great and small. He professed to see corruption of the most 
offensive kind on every hand as the sole result of convention mani¬ 
pulation; he saw corporations uniting with professional politicians 
for the enslavement of the people, the control of legislation, the 
tempting of executive and administrative public servants from the 
path of rectitude. The one sovereign remedy that appealed to him 
was the abolition of conventions. Probably a more depressing, 
pessimistic word picture of alleged total depravity was never pre¬ 
sented to the public for its enlightenment than the one held up by 
Mr. La Follette as an accurate portrayal of conditions from which he 
drew his inspiration to push forward the primary election movement. 

Mr. La Follette delivered his address before the students at 
Ann Arbor in March, 1898. On March 21, 1898, the first draft of 
a tentative primary bill prepared by L. J. Hash, the Manitowoc law¬ 
yer, was printed in The Milwaukee Sentinel. Mr. Hash perfected 
his measure later, and in August of that year he caused several hun¬ 
dred copies to be printed and circulated among leading men of the 
state, educators and members of the legislature. It has been said 
that a copy of the Hash bill was in the hands of the men who framed 
the primary bill in 1901, but there is no record evidence of that fact. 

In presenting his proposed measure for the consideration of pub¬ 
lic spirited citizens, Mr. Hash did not take the position of an alarm¬ 
ist. He believed public sentiment was changing and that the time 
was rapidly approaching when there would be no occasion for de¬ 
bate. “If thoughful men. are not now unanimous on this subject it 
is believed that they will fast become so,” he said in a preface to his 
printed bill. His explanation of the reasons that prompted him to 
prepare the measure and offer it to students of the subject for exam¬ 
ination and criticism were stated in a few words. He said: 

“The draft of a primary election law presented in the following 
pages is the offspring of a belief that it has become the duty of the 
state to take into its own hands the whole machinery by which candi¬ 
dates for public office are selected, and to restrain the activity of 
political parties within its legitimate field, education; compelling 
them to abandon office getting mainly through organization and 
organization mainly for office getting as their principal reason for 
existence, and to substitute the function of teaching public policy 
and inculcating political doctrine as their primary object while allow¬ 
ing them to win the great political offices through the success of their 
propaganda. All this should be done, of course, by laws that are 
both in their provisions and their administration judicially fair to 
every party alike and to the unorganized independent voter.” 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


23 


There is no evidence at hand that Mr. Nash had a selfish motive 
in preparing and presenting his measure to the public and it must 
be conceded that he was inspired by worthy purposes. He brought 
to the task a trained legal mind and an experience as a practicing 
attorney that had won him distinction at the bar. But at best his 
knowledge of the subject treated was purely academic. The trials 
made of the direct vote system of making nominations had been con¬ 
ducted in limited spheres and one of the most serious objections to 
the plan was thereby evaded. 

The Nash bill provided for two primaries. At the first a prelim¬ 
inary vote was taken to place candidates in the field; at the second 
the candidates were nominated. The regular election machinery of 
the townships and wards was to be used for operating the primaries. 
All primaries were to be held at the same time and place. Existing 
laws were to be made a part of the new law and the qualifications of 
voters in the primaries were to be the same as at general elections. 
The candidates for governor and lieutenant governor were to be 
nominated at the primary, but it was provided that the candidate 
for governor was to name the candidates for other places on the state 
ticket—to appoint his cabinet as it were, and submit their names to 
the voters for confirmation or rejection. Provision also was made 
for placing independent, or fusion tickets in the field. 


24 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER V. 

✓ 

In the Seeing of 1900. 


Early in the Spring of 1900 the belief became general that Mr. 
La Follette would make another trial to win the nomination for 
governor at the hands of the republican party. That lie always had 
intended to be a candidate there can be no reasonable doubt, but no 
public declaration of that intention was made until May 16, at which 
time a mild, conciliatory announcement addressed to the republican 
voters of Wisconsin w r as printed in The Milwaukee Sentinel, then 
owned and managed by men who were his strong partisans. In that 
announcement the primary election movement w r as not specifically 
mentioned, but reference w r as made to the fact that he had, with 
others, labored for years “to secure the recognition of certain prin¬ 
ciples as just, equitable, and republican. 7 ’ As he referred to taxa¬ 
tion reforms, presumably as an interpretation of the statement quot¬ 
ed, and as no further hint was given of his purpose to push his pri¬ 
mary ideas to a revolutionary issue, little, if any, thought w r as given 
to the subject, the announcement being regarded as the formal utter¬ 
ance of a candidate who desired to make the best possible impression 
without saying anything that would give offense or occasion for 
alarm. 

The announcement opened the campaign in earnest, as five other 
candidates were then in the field. They were: State Senators De- 
Wayne Stebbins, John M. Whitehead, A. M. Jones; the Hon. Ira B. 
Bradford and Gen. Earl M. Rogers. 

On May 31, as a means of heading off a rumor that he would, if 
elected governor, use the position to attempt the defeat of U. S. Sen¬ 
ator John C. Spooner for re-election, Mr. La Follette came out in a 
public statement, also printed in The Sentinel, which pledged his ab¬ 
solute neutrality in the selection of a successor to Senator Spooner. 
He stated in so many words that he would do nothing to interfere 
with Senator Spooner’s re-election, but that he would confine him¬ 
self entirely to the duties of his office with the hope of earning and 
securing a renomination at the expiration of his first term. He in¬ 
timated that his purposes were peaceful and that he hoped for har¬ 
mony hereafter. 

The closing sentence of this statement was a significant one, in 
that it shows to what extent he wished it to be understood the change 
of heart professed by him had affected his attitude toward the other 
leaders of the party in the state. During the campaign of 1898 an 
attack had been made upon Gov. Scofield by means of a pamphlet 
“published by direction of the republican club of Milwaukee coun¬ 
ty,” that was unique in the history of Wisconsin politics. It was so 
bitter in tone, so malicious in character, so utterly unjust and heart¬ 
lessly cruel that it raised up friends for Gov. Scofield on every hand. 


Tiie Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


25 


The republican club of Milwaukee county was a La Follette organi¬ 
zation and the members were in constant communication with the 
Madison branch of that republican faction. 

In his explanation of May 31, he referred to the pamphlet in the 
following language: 

“In this connection, it may be as well to say something with ref¬ 
erence to my candidacy of two years ago. My reasons for being a 
candidate at that time were justified and emphasized by the conven¬ 
tion in its platform. It has been largely the faithful observance of 
the pledges then given which entitles Gov. Scofield’s administration, 
at this time, to public approval, in which I heartily join. Some 
phases of that campaign not within my control I should have been 
glad to have seen omitted. For them I should not be held responsible 
any more than my opponents in this campaign should be blamed for 
the personal attacks now being made upon myself.” 

Historical accuracy demands that the false impression conveyed 
in the last sentence of the paragraph quoted should be challenged. 
Mr. La Follette was not slandered, maligned or abused in that cam¬ 
paign by any opponent. His republicanism was questioned, that 
was all. 

Among the first conventions called in the state were the two held 
in the Waukesha assembly districts, the home of State Senator A. M. 
Jones, a candidate for the nomination against Mr. La Follette. It 
was in this county that the decisive battle was fought and won by the 
friends of the Madison man. Mr. La Follette had a perfect organiza¬ 
tion in Waukesha and Milwaukee counties and Mr. Jones was weak¬ 
ened by the loss of the anti-La Follette support that had served in 
the past to keep that gentleman in check. The Waukesha campaign 
was in the main conducted from Milwaukee; the plans were laid in 
Milwaukee and a large part of the money required to meet expenses 
was furnished by the Milwaukee friends. Mr. Jones was defeated 
in both districts and on June 30, the day the first district convention 
was held, he withdrew from the race. On July 2 The Sentinel 
printed the following explanation of the situation at that time: 

“For two weeks past the air has been full of talk of a combined 
opposition to the La Follette movement, but it is now freely admitted 
that this is only talk; that there is no such movement. Mr. Payne, 
who expects to devote his whole time to the national campaign, is 
evidently not going to interfere in the preliminary contest for the 
nomination in Wisconsin or any other state. As a national com¬ 
mitteeman and one of the managers of the presidential campaign 
he will have to be in touch with the various state republican cam¬ 
paigns, including that in Wisconsin, and he can not therefore inter¬ 
fere, although it is no secret that he would prefer some other candi¬ 
date than Mr. La Follette. There is no sign that either Senator 
Spooner or Senator Quarles is trying to organize any movement for 
or against any candidate for governor, and friends of both of them 
have said they have no such intention. Under the circumstances the 
possibility of any such movement, if it was ever contemplated by any 
one, may be said to have passed.” 

Mr. Bradford retired from the race on July 3; on July 6 Mr. 
Whitehead withdrew; July 14 Gen. Rogers sent in his announcement 


26 


Political Reform" in Wisconsin. 


of withdrawal; Senator Stebbins held on until July 24, when he, too, 
stepped out of the race, leaving the track to Mr. La Follette, who at 
this time had an overwhelming majority of the delegates elected and 
more than half the counties of the state had held their conventions. 
And still Mr. La Follette held his peace with respect to the primary 
election idea. 

In the latter part of July, however, when his nomination was 
assured beyond peradventure, Mr. La Follette sent for some of his 
Milwaukee friends for a conference at Madison. He handed them a 
copy of his Ann Arbor address on primary elections and asked them 
to look it over. He explained that he had given the subject deep 
study, that he understood it thoroughly and wanted a plank in the 
forthcoming republican platform committing the party irrevocably 
to the enactment of a primary law. For the purpose of arousing 
public sentiment he desired that a large number of pamphlets be 
printed and distributed and asked that the necessary money be con¬ 
tributed to his campaign fund to make this possible. His Ann 
Arbor speech contained a severe arraignment of railroad officers 
which was evidently directed against the presidents of the leading 
lines in this state. Mr. La Follette was told that it would be unfair 
and an evidence of bad faith to print and circulate at such a time, 
after months of silence' during which he had received the support 
of the railroad companies through their officers, an address in which 
those same men and corporations were held up to public scorn as 
types of everything that is mercenary, dishonest and corrupt. He 
was also reminded that he had given his personal pledge to the rail¬ 
road officials that he would cease his unjust attacks upon them in re¬ 
turn for their support in the campaign then on, and that he should 
abide by his promise. He was also reminded that a primary law 
was no part of the harmony program that he had himself promoted 
and that if he desired to force a primary plank into the republican 
platform he should have so stated when he announced himself as a 
candidate. He acknowledged the force of the argument so far as 
his reference to railroads was concerned and agreed that the intem¬ 
perate language contained in the address as it was originally written 
should be stricken out, but insisted that the pamphlet be printed in 

revised form and circulated, which was done. 

► ' 

As further evidence of his peaceful frame of mind, Mr. La Fol¬ 
lette prepared and printed with the address an introduction in which 
the astonishing statement was made that primary elections were 
needed to guard against waves of popular indignation that were 
likely to injuriously affect legislation. He proposed the primarv as 
a safeguard against aroused public prejudice. Here is his own lan¬ 
guage on the subject: 

“For many years, through the press and from the platform, I 
have earnestly endeavored to fix public thought upon this most im¬ 
portant subject, because it is the foundation of representative gov¬ 
ernment. The entire superstructure rests upon the nomination of 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


27 


candidates for office. Under the caucus and convention system a 
wave of popular interest or indignation may sweep over a state, 
occasioned by some special or peculiar wrong, and a much aroused 
public sentiment take charge of the nomination of candidates for 
the time being. But wrongs righted in this way are liable to carry 
legislation to the extreme, work positive harm to important interests, 
discredit reform and cause reaction, resulting in disappointment and 
loss of public interest. Relaxation of public interest invites fresh 
encroachments upon the rights of the people, and, ultimately, recur¬ 
ring and spasmodic efforts to remedy evils.” 

The address with the introduction was first printed in The State, 
Mr. La Follette’s personal organ, during the week ending July 28, 
and the introduction in The Sentinel on July 28, 1900, all these 
publications being made after the opposition to Mr. La Follette 
had collapsed v and all the candidates opposed to him, withdrawn. 

The platform pledge inserted by the convention at the request 
of Mr. La Follette was all that he asked. It called for the abolition 
of all caucuses and conventions and the nomination of all candidates 
by a direct vote. Its language was unequivocal and definite, as fol¬ 
lows : 

“The great reformation effected in our general elections through 
the Australian ballot inspires us with confidence to apply the same 
method in making nominations so that every voter may exercise his 
sovereign right of choice by direct vote without the intervention or 
interference of any political agency. We therefore demand (recom¬ 
mend) that caucuses and conventions for the nomination of candi¬ 
dates for office be abolished by legislative enactment, and that all 
candidates for state, legislative, congressional and county officers be 
nominated by a primary election upon the same day by direct vote 
under the Australian ballot.” 


28 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER VI. 

A Harmonious Campaign. 

Having succeeded in securing the nomination, Mr. La Follette 
went into the campaign with the solid strength of a united party be¬ 
hind him. There had been defections or bolting on the part of 
some of his followers in 1896 and again in 1898, but there was noth¬ 
ing of the kind in 1900. His net majority over his four competitors 
on election day was 103,745. The campaign was a vigorous one, and 
in every address delivered by him Mr. La Follette explained his 
primary election theory and appealed for support in his efforts to 
secure for Wisconsin the great blessings he professed to believe 
would follow the enactment of such a law. * 

The student of events will look in vain for any indication of a 
split in the republican party during the campaign of 1900, or any 
indication that a political eruption was impending. During the 
campaign the republican state central committee maintained offices 
at the Pfister hotel, the old republican headquarters. At the head 
of that committee as chairman was Gen. George E. Bryant, who was 
considered as a sort of political godfather to Mr. La Follette, and a 
large majority of the members of that body were dyed in the wool 
La Follette men. The campaign expenses were met in the usual 
way, the usual contributors chipping into the hat to create a fund 
with which to pay the cost incidental to maintaining speakers in the 
field, circulating literature, and perfecting a party organization in 
the several counties. A special train was engaged to take the candi¬ 
date for governor through the state, to the end that he might meet 
his engagements with as little strain upon his physical strength as 
possible. All was harmony, cordial good fellowship, and hope that 
the factional differences that, had more than threatened in former 
years had permanently disappeared. 

After the close of the campaign, conditions remained unchanged. 
The white winged dove of peace had become the emblem of the 
Wisconsin republicans and she no longer lived in terror of being 
cooked or eaten raw by frenzied factionists. The republican state 
central committee met on Dec. 13 at the Pfister hotel and there ex¬ 
changed congratulations and attended a banquet spread at the behest 
of their chairman in their honor. On Dec. 1 the governor-elect, .who 
had returned that dav from an Indiana health resort, where he had 
gone to recover from the fatigue of the campaign, gave to The Mil¬ 
waukee Sentinel an interview which was printed on the first page of 
that paper the following morning. Brotherly love, harmony, sweet 
reasonableness and everything desirable and comfortable to have 
around were the lot of republicans at that particular time. In his 
interview Gov. La Follette said: 





The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. - 29 

“I wish to express my appreciation of the splendid support I re¬ 
ceived during the campaign. The campaign was ably managed by 
Gen. Bryant and Secretaries Host and Richter of the republican state 
central committee. They ran a thorough, clean campaign, and I 
commend them for their work and thank them for it. I deeply ap¬ 
preciate the support I had, both here at home and throughout the 
state. The gold democrats have again demonstrated their fidelity 
to principle in a striking manner. The large plurality given the 
republican ticket is a strong indorsement of the principles set forth 
in the republican state platform and shows that we have a united 
party to stand for those measures to which the party was pledged at 
the last state convention.” 

That was the situation when Robert M. La Follette was inaugur¬ 
ated governor of Wisconsin in January, 1901. He had been elected 
governor by “a united party.” He was governor of the state and as 
such was entitled to the respect of all citizens, regardless of party. 
A majority of the members of both houses of the legislature elected 
with him were in sympathy with every reform movement that had 
been proposed or mentioned in the platform. Ko deadfalls had 
been set to catch him and no pits had been dug for him to fall into. 
There were men who believed he had made an unjust and malicious 
attack upon his predecessor, Gov. Scofield, in 1898, who were not too 
confident of the future, but they hoped for the best and were deter¬ 
mined to give him a fair trial. No man could have been inducted 
into high office under conditions favoring him more than those that 
attended the inauguration of Gov. Robert M. La Follette. 

A brief explanation is required here in order to clear away’ a 
misunderstanding, purposely created, that has influenced the minds 
of certain citizens. It was said that eleven state senators met in 
Milwaukee on December 13, at the time of the meeting of the state 
central committee already mentioned, for the purpose of devising a 
plan to organize the senate in opposition to the governor. The eleven 
senators who attended a meeting on that day were composed of three 
La Follette men, seven who were not unfriendly to him, although 
they were not in sympathy with what they believed to be his tendency 
to radicalism, and one who had little if any faith in him, but was 
willing to give him a chance to “make good.” The La Follette men 
were Edgar G. Mills, Superior; Andrew L. Kreutzer, Wausau, and 
D. E. Riordan, Eagle River. The “fair minded” senators were 
Julius E. Roehr, J. H. Green and William Devos of Milwaukee; 
John Harris, Elkhorn; J. A. Willy, Appleton; H. Hagemeister, 
Green Bay, and John Reynolds, Kenosha. The one senator who 
was sleeping on his arm as a matter of precaution was A. M. Jones of 
Waukesha. 

This meeting was held for the purpose of talking over informally 
the makeup of the senate committees. The state senate, unlike the 
assembly, selects its own committees. The assignments are not 
made on the spur of the moment on the day the senate meets. They 
are the result of conferences, deliberation, correspondence, during 


30 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


which the wishes of the senators themselves are consulted so far as 
is possible. At the meeting referred to there were eleven members 
of that body out of a total of thirty-one republicans. At subsequent 
meetings, all informal and some merely accidental, the subject of 
committee assignments was discussed. When the members finally 
came together at the opening of the session the business of this 
character not already determined—and there had been a number 
of senators in attendance on the inauguration ceremonies—was 
closed up. When the senate was called to order on Jan. 9, three 
resolutions were introduced. Resolution No. 1 invited the clergy 
of Madison to open the daily sessions of the senate with prayer. 
Resolution No. 2 instructed the clerk to notify the assembly that the 
senate had organized and was ready for business. Resolution No. 
3 introduced by Senator Stebbins, was the one appointing the com¬ 
mittees of that body. 

Had the meeting held in Milwaukee been antagonistic to Gov. La 
Follette, called for the purpose of planning to defeat his pet measure, 
the committee on privileges and elections would have been packed 
against the primary election bill. As a matter of fact, the com¬ 
mittee before whom that bill would come was made up of Senators 
Hatton, Miller and Martin, three intense partisans of the governor; 
Senator Whitehead, a “progressive” who had taken a hand in prev¬ 
ious primary legislation, who had helped to frame the corrupt prac¬ 
tices act of 1897, and who was a leader in all tax reform legislation; 
and Senator Jones, the ultra-conservative. 

With respect to this matter, one more point remains to be cleared 
up. In his message vetoing the Hagemeister bill several months 

later. Gov. La Follette said, among other things: 

“Immediately upon the organization of the legislature, many 
weeks before any bill had been offered upon the subject of primary 
election, it was boastingly announced and published that one of its 
branches had been so organized as to defeat the passage of any 
primary election legislation.” 

If such announcements and publications were made they were 
without authority and were untrue in substance and detail. Organ¬ 
ization to defeat primary election legislation would have begun with 
the committee on privileges and elections. That committee was 
favorable to primary election legislation. The legislature convened 
on January 9; the Stevens primary bill was introduced in the as¬ 
sembly by Mr. Stevens and in the senate by Senator George P. Miller 
on January 28, nineteen days after the two houses convened. At 
best, nineteen days is not “many weeks,” and although the bill for 
which the fight was finally made was a substitute, the statement of 
the governor did not specify that particular substitute, but said the 
alleged organization had been formed “many weeks before any bill 
was offered upon the subject of primary elections.” 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 31 

CHAPTER VII. 

A Period of Uncertainty. 

It is an interesting fact that, with three noteworthy exceptions, 
no man connected with the faction that subsequently fought Gov. La 
toilette so bitterly can put his finger on the specific act of the gover¬ 
nor that first aroused his ire, or name the exact time when he con¬ 
cluded to paint his face, put feathers in his hair, and take to the 
warpath. Most of them were surprised when they first realized that 
they had left the reservation and were armed and equipped for 
battle. At the outset there was considerable interest, not of a hostile 
character, however, in the steps to be taken to fulfill the platform 
pledge with respect to primary elections. It was conceded that the 
pledge must be redeemed and it was supposed that all republicans 
would be given an opportunity to express their sentiments upon the 
subject. In his message the governor had explained his theories at 
considerable length, just as he had explained them in 1898 and on 
every possible occasion subsequent to that date, with the exception 
previously noted, during the preceding campaign. It had been the 
custom in the past for members to call at the executive chamber fre¬ 
quently for informal consultations and conferences on all subjects 
relating to legislation. The doors of the executive chamber always 
had been open during office hours, and frequently long into the night 
during legislative sessions, and visitors were welcomed and made to 
feel at home. 

But conditions were changed now. As the days passed it was 
noticed that an air of mystery was beginning to gather about the 
capitol building. Men were called to the executive chamber for 
conferences, it is true, but they were carefully selected from among 
their fellows and the consultations were always held behind closed, 
guarded doors. They were star chamber sessions of the most secret 
kind. Newspaper correspondents who had had the run of the ante¬ 
room of the executive apartments in past years were frozen out 
entirely or made to feel extremely uncomfortable while there. There 
was an indefinable something in the atmosphere of the outer execu¬ 
tive office that made it impossible for certain visitors to penetrate far 
beyond the portals with any degree of ease. 

Long before any attempt was made to organize a faction in op¬ 
position to the governor there was a faction organized and dis¬ 
ciplined to carry out his program. His line of battle was formed 
to fight a foe not yet in existence; his generals, aids and lieuten¬ 
ants were appointed and entered upon the discharge of their duties. 
The atmosphere of mystery that at first enveloped the executive 
chamber only, spread to the entire capitol—legislative chambers, 
committee rooms, corridors, even the cloakrooms and closets. 
There were little gatherings where whispered consultations were 


32 


Political Reform iist Wisconsin. 


held; there was evasion, suspicion, secrecy on every hand. Every 

employee in the state house that could be dragooned into the ranks 
was made a secret service agent in addition to performing his reg¬ 
ular clerical duties. Two men would be talking in a corridor and 
a third would approach; instantly there would be warning glances 
exchanged and the two would separate, to be seen again a few min¬ 
utes later continuing the conversation. A true blue administra¬ 
tion supporter would shy at the coming of an outsider as if the in¬ 
truder were afflicted with a contagious disease, for the servant of 
the executive feared he would be suspected of disloyalty should he 
be caught in friendly converse with one not yet initiated into the 
sacred arcana and possessed of the countersign, grip and password. 

All this may sound like a childish fairy tale to one who did not 
go through that experience, but it is the bald, literal truth never¬ 
theless. Those who visited the state house at. Madison during 
that memorable session either on business or pleasure bent, be¬ 
came conscious at once of the changed atmosphere, the oppressive 
psychic force with which the capitol was charged as with an electric 
current. It is this same force that has in the past, under condi¬ 
tions favorable to such results, brought about great religious re¬ 
vivals, panics, or lynchings, as the case might be. 

But although the situation described was enough to cause a dan¬ 
gerous tension, Gov. La Toilette did not appear to appreciate that 
fact, if he is to be given credit for desiring to avoid a factional 
war. At all events, if his purpose was one in which peace and 
progress had a part, lie displayed a lamentable lack of tact in deal¬ 
ing with members of the legislature. He did not appear to know 
how to treat with equals, lie was wonderfully persuasive at times 
and his influence over some of his adherents had many of the 
characteristics of hypnotism. In no other wav can be explained 
their consent to become involved in a political intrigue that would 
have been in place in a Latin American republic, but which was en¬ 
tirely foreign to Wisconsin methods. 

When flattery and cajolery failed and the hypnotic spell would 
not work, it was the governor’s invariable custom to appeal to the 
cupidity or fear of the man he wished to influence. The frank, 
open manliness that should have characterized the intercourse of 
legislators with one another and with the executive and adminis¬ 
trative department was wanting from the day the legislature con¬ 
vened. In place of reason there were plottings. In place of a 
free interchange of opinions there were lightfooted messengers hur¬ 
rying about the capitol, mysterious messages delivered with nods 
and winks and sidelong glances, and star chamber sessions of 
“friends of the administration.” 

But Gov. La Follette did not always succeed in his efforts to 
influence even his friends and hold them in line for the full pro¬ 
gram prepared by himself. There were three men at least who 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


33 


knew when their attitude of friendliness toward the governor and 
prejudice in favor of his legislative program ceased. Each was 
called in turn to the executive chamber for an executive session. 
Each had ideas of his own which he had expressed freely without 
having first had them indorsed by the governor. They were 
brought “under the influence” which was expected to make them 
pliable and responsive to the word of command. When these men 
came away from the conferences there wife blood in their eyes and 
their souls were congested with language it were a sin to repeat, or 
even think. 

They made no secret of the fact that they had become insur¬ 
gents—as they now would be called. They were all state sena¬ 
tors and their names were O’Niel, Kreutzer, and Riordan. 

The condition of public sentiment on the primary election 
movement when the legislature convened in January, 1901, is 
clearly illustrated by the attitude of the newspapers of that day. 
As there was no division in the republican party, it will be con¬ 
ceded that the newspapers reflected the real sentiments of the peo¬ 
ple, so far as the people had been able to form opinions, and that 
they were not guided by factional prejudices. There had been con¬ 
siderable public discussion of the subject, it is true. In his mes¬ 
sage vetoing the Hagemeister bill four months later Gov. La Fol- 
lette told what had been done to inform the voters relative to the 

merits of the primary election reform. He said: 

“Whatever was done was solely with the view of stimulating 
thought and argument of the measure upon its merits. From 
platform and pulpit, before agricultural societies, good govern¬ 
ment clubs, political clubs, debating societies, in the school houses 
and public halls, wherever men were gathered together, the dang¬ 
ers which threatened representative government were discussed, 
the causes plainly traced to the selection of candidates by the 
bosses, the vital importance of election by the people by direct 
vote, and the necessary provisions of a primary law were fully 
and fairly presented. The press of the state almost without ex¬ 
ception gave the subject editorial treatment from time to time, 
while the leading periodicals and magazines of the country, widely 
read by our people, devoted much space to its consideration. 
Hundreds of thousands of pamphlets and addresses presenting every 
phase of the issue and meeting the arguments and objections of the 
opposition were distributed throughout the state. The entire matter 
was thoroughly well understood.” 

But, granting that a persistent and energetic campaign had 
been waged in the interests of the movement, there was still a 
marked lack of enthusiasm manifested, and, so far as the newspa¬ 
pers were able to judge, a grave doubt existed of the ability of the 
legislature to invent a workable plan for putting the theoretical 
reform into practical operation. At all events, sentiment was not 
united in favor of the movement, as the governor appears to have 
believed. 

Few of the leading newspapers in the state pretended to speak 


34 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


with authority on the subject. The Milwaukee Sentinel and Daily 
News were both unqualifiedly in favor of the governor’s plan of 
reforming the method of selecting candidates. The Sentinel was 
at that time the La Follette personal organ, its chief editorial writ¬ 
er, Jerre C. Murphy, having been appointed to the position of 
private secretary to the governor. The Daily News had, since 
1896, been the leading “progressive” democratic paper of the 
state, and as such it supported the primary election movement 
from the beginning, although the democratic party had not consist¬ 
ently committed itself to that reform. In 1900 the democratic 
state platform contented itself with merely condemning the “pres¬ 
ent caucus law” as a “complicated and expensive nominating sys¬ 
tem,” and favored a revision that would “result in a simple, direct, 
and inexpensive method of nominating candidates for office.” 

The Milwaukee Journal adopted a come-let-us-reason-together 
editorial tone that had all the appearance of suppressed hostility, 
which later developed into open antagonism. The Evening Wis¬ 
consin was noncommittal as to the primary election bill while all 
Wie time it was frankly and unmistakably friendly to •the governor. 

So far as the country press were concerned, there were a large 
number of the newspapers that did not take part in the discussion, 
their publishers being manifestly “on the fence,” or unable to de¬ 
cide the matter to their own satisfaction. At that time the Mil¬ 
waukee Journal was devoting considerable space to the country 
press, printing excerpts from editorials and commenting- on them. 
In newspaper parlance, it was “featuring its state press column.” 
On February 22, 1901, it compiled from that department a list of 
fifty-nine papers that had expressed opinions on the subject of the 
proposed primary election law. Of that number twenty-two were 
friendly to the bill and thirty-seven were opposed to it. Of those 
that favored the measure, two were independent, three were demo¬ 
cratic, and seventeen wmre republican in sentiment. Of those op¬ 
posed there were fifteen democratic, twenty-one republican, and 
one independent. . There was at least one republican daily in the 
interior of the state that was opposed to the movement that does not 
appear in the Journal’s list. 

One feature of the newspaper situation at the time worthy of 
mention was the attitude of the Madison staff correspondents of the 
Evening Wisconsin and the Milwaukee Journal. The latter paper 
was represented at Madison by Ellis B. L T sher, a gold democrat. 
The Evening Wisconsin’s staff correspondent was Col. Dan. B. 
Starkey, late private secretary to Gov. Scofield. Both of these men 
were given considerable lattitude by their papers and they signed 
their letters. While the papers did not take a stand against the 
primary movement, both Usher and Starkey made no secret of 
their personal opposition to the attempt at reform legislation of 
that character. Col. Starkey, whose work always had been in the 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


35 


news department, naturally gave his letters the appearance of news 
reports, while Mr. Usher, a former publisher and editorial writer, 
followed the habit of years and wrote what may be called editorial 
news letters to his paper. Some of the strongest arguments ever 
printed against the primary election movement may be found in 
the letters written by Mr. Usher to the Milwaukee Journal during 
that memorable session of the legislature. 

One of the most important events of the winter—the most im¬ 
portant so far as relates to the newspaper situation—was the sale 
of The Milwaukee Sentinel in February. Up to that time The 
Sentinel had been owned and edited by ultra-La Follette supporters. 
By the change of ownership it became the property of Charles F. 
Pfister, who had been a neutral during the pre-convention period 
and a supporter of Gov. La Follette in the campaign for the elec¬ 
tion of the republican state ticket. The editorial announcing the 
change, written bv the new editor in chief, Lansing Warren, in¬ 
dicated that The Sentinel would be a consistent, conservative, loyal 
republican paper under the new management. 


36 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER VIII. 

Opposition to the Primary Bjll Develops. 

The administration primary election bill was introduced in the 
assembly by E. Ray Stevens and in the senate by George F. Miller, 
on Jan. 28. These men were members of the committee on privil¬ 
eges and elections in their respective houses and a majority of each 
committee was in favor of the bill as introduced. At that time 
there did not appear to be any doubt about the passage of the bill 
substantially in the form as introduced. Whatever dissent there 
may have been in the minds of individual legislators was merely 
passive; there was no organized opposition. Even the most conser¬ 
vative members of the two houses declined to commit themselves 
in a public statement, explaining that they had not been able to 
give the measure the consideration it required in order to inform 
themselves with respect to its merits or demerits. Col. Starkey re¬ 
ported to the Evening Wisconsin that the bill would surely pass and 
become a law. 

The first hearing on the measure was held before a joint meet¬ 
ing of the committees of the two houses on Feb. 12, at which time 
H. C. Adams, Gov. La Follette’s dairy and food commissioner, and 
H. C. Taylor, Orfordville, appeared for the bill, and James G. 
Monahan, collector of revenue for the western Wisconsin district, 
appeared in opposition. 

It was charged later that Mr. Monahan, a federal office holder, 

was the spokesman of an organized movement acting under in¬ 
structions from persons “higher up.” As proof of the truth of this 
indictment it was shown that, on Feb. 4, a circular letter had been 
sent out from Darlington, Mr. Monahan’s home city, signed by 
George F. West and addressed to republicans who had attended 
the republican county convention for Lafayette county as delegates 
the previous year. This letter was a protest against the passage 
of the primary bill by Mr. West, who had been a delegate to the re¬ 
publican state convention in August, 1900. He explained that, as 
such delegate, he had not voted for a measure like the one introduc¬ 
ed in the legislature when the platform was adopted and did not 
believe the republicans of Wisconsin were in favor of such a law. 
He asked those to whom the circular was addressed to sign a pro¬ 
test, for which a form was inclosed, to be sent to members of the 
legislature. 

On February 11 The Sentinel printed a news dispatch from 
Madison in which reference was made to the West circular letter 
and it was asserted that “federal officeholders in the state are mak¬ 
ing a campaign to defeat the primary election bill.” Mr. Mona¬ 
han, United States District Attorney W. G. Wheeler, and Edwin 
D. Coe, United States pension agent, were all mentioned by name. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


37 


Mr. Wheeler's offense was in having been seen about the corridors 
of the capitol building and Mr. Coe was charged with having writ¬ 
ten newspaper articles and letters in which the primary election 
proposition was criticised. It was intimated that “some influence 
was working against the bill,” the inference being that United 
States Senators Spooner and Quarles had taken a hand in the mat¬ 
ter and were acting through the federal officeholders. 

When the hearing was held before the committees meeting in 
joint session, Mr. Monahan prefaced his address with a personal 
statement to the effect that he had not counseled with either of the 
senators on the primary bill. He denied that he had ever talked 
with Senator Quarles on the subject and had not seen or heard 
from that gentleman in months except once, when he received a let¬ 
ter from him relating to a pension matter. He had never talked 
with Senator Spooner on the subject but once, and that was “a few 
moments, months ago.” He denied that there was any combina¬ 
tion of officeholders to defeat the bill and claimed for himself the 
right to express his personal opinions on this or any other matter 
pending before the legislature. 

In the face of this definite denial, the original article in which 
the charge was made was mailed the following day from the office 
of Gov. La Follette in packages containing the governor’s Ann Ar¬ 
bor address, H. C. Adams’ address and the speech made by Mr. 
Taylor of Orfordville. These packages were sent to 50,000 Wis¬ 
consin voters. Even at that early day it was an offense to mail a 
protest to a few delegates in Lafayette county, while it was permit¬ 
ted to sow circulars broadcast throughout the state accompanied 
by a statement the truth of which already had been challenged by 
a man who knew the facts, provided the circulars were designed to 
aid the administration. Gov. La Follette reiterated the charge 
against the federal officers when he wrote his Hagemeister bill 
veto message. 

Mr. Adams’ address was the keynote speech in support of the 
primary bill. Mr. Adams held an appointive position under the 
governor, but no objection was ever filed against his activity in the 
campaign for the primary law. He had served as chairman of the 
republican state convention the previous August, and, in putting the 
motion to adopt the platform he had failed to call for the nega¬ 
tive vote, declaring the motion carried unanimously after the af¬ 
firmative vote had been taken. Mr. Adams also had participated 
in the labors of the framers of the bill and it was understood that 
he contributed materially to the work of unraveling some of the 
most perplexing tangles that confronted them. He was thoroughly 
familiar with the subject and was, by natural ability and careful 
preparation, the best man that could have been selected for the task 
of opening the debate. 

There is probably nowhere in the literature on the subject an 


38 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


abler defense of the primary election theory in general and the 
Stevens bill in particular than the address delivered by Mr. Adams 
urn that occasion. It was a masterly argument, consummately art¬ 
ful, clear, concise, forceful, and convincing. The reasons given 
for favoring the measure were identical with those advanced by 
Gov. La Toilette in his published addresses and his message to the 
legislature—a desire to give every voter an opportunity to express 
his choice of candidates by a direct vote under the Australian bal¬ 
lot system and to take from the pjolitical machine, the political boss, 
the power to manipulate conventions and thereby defeat the will 
of the voters. Mr. Adams went over the primary bill and explain¬ 
ed its provisions, showing how it w r as expected to accomplish the 
objects sought, and closed with an eloquent appeal to the commit¬ 
tee—and incidentally to the members of the legislature who 
thronged the chamber where the hearing was held—to support the 
measure and write it into the statute books of the state. 

Mr. Monahan attacked the bill in general and in detail. In his 
opinion its tendency was populistic, and not republican. Speci¬ 
fically, he enumerated the following objections to the bill as it 
was framed, but he did not ask that it be changed, expressing a be¬ 
lief that it could not be improved, being wrong in principle: 

“First—The method provided for getting names upon the pri¬ 
mary ticket would be burdensome, expensive, and calculated to retire 
from politics modest men who would not seek office, to ‘increase 
the activity of the boodler and professional politician, lengthen the 
arm of the boss, and increase the strength of every machine in the 
state.’ 

“Second—It would give the cities practical control of the nomi¬ 
nation of candidates. 

“Third—The bill would impose a tax of approximately $150,000 
upon the people of the state. ‘Unnecessary taxation is unjust taxa¬ 
tion.’ 

“Fourth—Under the provisions of this bill we would abandon the 
system that the majority shall rule for one that minorities may 
govern. 

“Fifth—This bill takes away from the people the right to make 
platforms and gives the power to candidates for office. 

“Sixth—The provisions of the bill make it impossible to consider 
location or nationality in the nomination of candidates. 

“Seventh—The bill in principle is a long step toward the aband¬ 
onment of representative government, bequeathed to us by the found¬ 
ers of this government, for the vagaries of populism.” 

Subsequent meetings were held at which speeches were made 
for and against the proposed law. Those appearing for the meas¬ 
ure were James A. Frear, Hudson; L. H. Bancroft, Richland Cen¬ 
ter; F. M. Miner, Eau Claire; W. G. Corrigan, Plainfield; John 
Strange, Oshkosh. The speakers who opposed it were M. G. Jef- 
fris, Janesville; Henry Fink, Milwaukee; H. H. Hayden, Eau 
Claire. H. W. Chynoweth of Madison closed the debate by appear¬ 
ing and summing up for the supporters of the bill on Feb. 26. 


\ 


39 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


From the time the first opposition was manifested until Mr. Chy- 
noweth’s address was delivered as the last word on the subject from 
one who personally represented the governor there had been talk of a 
compromise measure. It had been suggested that candidates for 
county offices and for the legislature be nominated at the primary 
and all other candidates nominated and platforms made at con¬ 
ventions. Another suggested measure provided for the nomination 
of candidates for county offices only at the primary. Still another 
proposal was that the primary be confined for the time being to a 
particular section of the state where it could be tried out, to be ex¬ 
tended to the entire state if found to work satisfactorily. The day 
following Mr. Chynoweth’s address, however, the following para¬ 
graph appeared in Col. Starkey’s dispatch to the Evening Wiscon¬ 
sin, announcing that a damper had been put upon all compromise 
efforts: 

“All hope of a compromise is now at an end. Mr. Chynoweth 
boldly declared last night that Gov. La Follette was behind the bill 
demanding its passage as the reward of victory, and the governor is 
determined not to yield an iota so far as the main features of the 
bill are concerned.” 

Still another incident illustrates how an end was put to the 
compromise talk. The Sentinel had formally changed hands on 
Feb. 19, but no mention was made of the primary election bill for 
several days, or until Mr. Warren, the new editor, could visit Madi¬ 
son and talk with the governor. That visit was made on Feb. 26, 
the day Mr. Chynoweth appeared before the committee, and Mr. 
Warren called at the executive chamber and had a conference with 
Gov. La Follette. 

Mr. Warren later related to friends the story of that meeting, 
but, although Gov. La Follette never deigned to deny in person the 
accuracy of Mr. Warren’s narrative, his friends did make such 
denial. Mr. Warren’s subsequent acts, however, are enough to 
indicate the tenor of the conversation and the outcome of the con¬ 
ference. 

Mr. Warren went to Madison on a peaceful mission. So much 
is known definitely by many. He iioped to come to an understand¬ 
ing by which The Sentinel could support La Follette and his 
administration. He made no secret of his purposes. Among other 
things he proposed to suggest certain amendments, or modifica¬ 
tions, of the primary election bill. The interests of the republican 
party as a political organization were at stake, and he hoped, as the 
editor of the leading republican paper of the state, to secure a 
respectful hearing for his views and to arrive at an understanding 
by which a division in the party could be avoided and the harmony 
that had resulted from Gov. La Follette’s nomination, but which 
was threatened by the exasperating circumstances attending the in¬ 
cubation and final hatching of the primary bill, might be saved 
from total wreck. 


40 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


On his return to Milwaukee, Mr. Warren wrote, in a railway 
coach, an editorial which, although the meeting with Gov. La Fol- 
Iette is not mentioned, speaks plainly as to the result of that at¬ 
tempt on his part to arrive at an understanding. He said: 

“In its present form the Stevens primary election bill can not 
become a law because Wisconsin is a loyal republican state. 

“The objections to the bill, as drawn, are specifically too varied 
and self-evident to call for enumeration. In general terms, it may 
be fairly characterized as radical to a populistic degree and revolu¬ 
tionary in the worse sense of the word. 

“The obliteration of all caucusses and conventions means the 
temporary destruction of all party organization in Wisconsin, and 
that is the chief end and aim of the experimental measure. 

“The only logical argument in favor of the bill is that its salient 
features were indorsed by the republican state convention. It is an 
interesting coincidence that this proposed legislation should have de¬ 
rived its chief excuse for existence from one of the ‘corrupting con¬ 
ventions’ which it was designed to wipe off the face of the earth. 
It is not at all certain that this same convention did not extend its 
powers when it passed the platform which contained the pith of the 
Stevens bill in one of its planks. The legitimate function of a com¬ 
mittee on resolutions is to enumerate principles and not to make 
laws. According to the republican platform adopted in Milwaukee on 
Aug. 8, 1900, by the republicans of Wisconsin in convention as¬ 
sembled, some such legislative enactment as the primary election 
bill was undoubtedly outlined and demanded. That convention, how¬ 
ever, had not the authority to draft any specific bills or to insist on 
any particular scheme of individual action on legislative measures. 

“Conditions today must guide the legislators at Madison when 
they vote for or against the Stevens bill. The friends of the mea¬ 
sure will not submit to any amendment or alteration in its provisions, 
nor will they consent to restrict its operations for two years to a few 
counties to test its efficacy. 

“Every senator and every assemblyman must gracefully swallow 
the Stevens bolus or have it forced down his throat. This is the 
dictum of the political iconoclasts who must rule or ruin. 

“These are some of the many reasons why the conservative, self- 
respecting republicans of Wisconsin will not dare to stain the statute 
books with the Stevens primary election bill.” 

This was the first editorial to appear in The Sentinel in which 
definite, unequivocal objection to the program of the governor was 
made. In point of fact, it may be said that this was the first edi¬ 
torial to appear in any paper in the state in which Gov. La Follette 
or his administration measure were criticised severely. As has 
already been said, the Daily News was supporting him loyally and 
advocating the passage of the primary election bill; the Evening 
Wisconsin was friendly to him; the Journal was not disposed to 
support the primary bill, but it had not printed any editorial crit¬ 
icisms that the governor could take exceptions to; The Sentinel had 
been his personal organ, doing his bidding as completely as it would 
were he in control of a majority of the stock of the company that 
owned it. And he had then been in office forty-six days. Surely 
this does not indicate that there was a conspiracy against Gov. La 
Follette on the part of the conservatives when he was inaugurated. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


41 


CHAPTER IX. 

The Pitched Battle. 

The contest came to a head when the primary election bill was 
reported by the committee of the assembly and the vote on passing 
it to engrossment and third reading was taken. Day by clay the 
men opposed to the measure had been gaining confidence. They 
even ceased talking about compromises as they began to hope they 
could defeat the measure entirely. They no longer urged that as 
a last resort the question be submitted to the people by referendum. 
Dozens of men who had maintained a neutral position at first now 
came out in opposition to the measure, having heard the arguments 
before the committee and given the subject consideration on their 
own account. There was a distinct educative value attached to 
the controversy and the seeds sown were beginning to sprout. 

Another factor was beginning to have an effect on the situation. 
The close friends of the administration were attempting to convey 
the impression that they were the anointed ones and in possession 
of the ark of the covenant. To them was given the right to speak 
with authority and they must be obeyed. To disagree with the gov¬ 
ernor was represented as a peculiar species of treason complicated 
with impiety, blasphemy, and lese majeste. Men who dared to 
express opinions without having first had them vised at the execu¬ 
tive chamber by the governor himself or by “Jerre” became poli¬ 
tically unclean and were classed under three general heads as “cor¬ 
ruptionists,” “corporation corruptionists,” or “corrupt hirelings.” 
The spirit of the master was breathed into the members of the fac¬ 
tion and it was bitter as gall. 

On Monday, March 18, the bill came before the assembly in the 
form of a substitute reported for passage by the committee, Assem¬ 
blyman John C. Karel dissenting. There was no material differ¬ 
ence between the substitute and the original bill. The members 
who signed the report were E. H. Steiger, chairman; E. Ray 
Stevens, who gave his name to the bill; W. W. Andrew, W. J. Mid¬ 
dleton, L.,K. Coapman, and John A. Henry. It was placed on the 
calendar for Tuesday, the following day, and made a special order 
for the evening of that day, the purpose being to railroad it through 
"mder the whip. 

Columns have been written and printed about that memorable 
session of the assembly, beginning at 7 :30 p. m., March 19,. 1901, 
and closing in the chill of an early March morning. In his veto 
message returning the Hagemeister bill to the senate weeks later, 
Gov. La Follette told the story as he wanted it printed in the legis¬ 
lative records. Magazine contributors who revel in descriptive 
writing have painted word pictures of it that were as vivid as a 
rarebit dream. Stump speakers have described it in language that 
made their audiences gasp and wonder to what extremities staid 


42 


Political Reform: in Wisconsin. 


old Wisconsin was drifting. And yet, it was not such a remarkable 
session. 

Before the bill could be brought to a vote, the question being 
on engrossment and third reading, one of the members who was 
opposed to its passage moved a “call of the house’’ and his motion 
was supported. The member who made the motion was E. A. 
Williams, a republican, who lived at Neenah. This was not such 
an extraordinary proceeding. A “call of the house” had been made 
that same day, March 19, on motion by Assemblyman Eline of 
Milwaukee, when senate bill No. 394 was under consideration. A 
motion to suspend the rules and act on the bill at once had just 
been taken and resulted in a vote of 65 to 19 in favor of the motion. 
Mr. Eline, who was opposed to the bill, then moved a call and he 
was sustained. In the case of the primary bill, a motion to substi¬ 
tute the committee bill for the original Stevens bill had been made 
and resulted in an affirmative vote of 53, negative 39, there being 
at that time eight absent members. Had the friends of the bill 
been able at any time during the night to muster fifty-one votes 
they could have raised the call. 

While the call was in force the members could transact no other 
business. The sergeant at arms was out looking for members 
absent without leave. The only motions that could be entertained 
were “to dispense with further proceedings under the call,” or “to 
adjourn.” Until the call could be raised, therefore, the only thing 
the members could do was to visit. A long night passed under such 
conditions naturally calls for some means of relieving the monotony 
and passing the time, but there was nothing doing in the assembly 
chamber that night that need call for special remark; nothing that 
ninety-two big, robust men, awake and looking for amusement, 
would not be likely to do under similar conditions at any time. 

But Gov. La Follette did not see in that session an ordinary 
occurrence. To his mind there was malicious villainy and cor¬ 
rupt plotting at the bottom of the entire business. Although his 
veto message was not written until nearly two months later, his 
story of the conspiracy that came to a head on that eventful night 
is worth repeating and should be considered in the light of known 
facts. He said: 

“Before the introduction of the primary election bill the attempt 
was made to arouse distrust concerning it, and to thoroughly dis¬ 
credit the measure in advance. Upon its presentation to the legis¬ 
lature—so framed as to comply with the pledge made to the people 
of the state—a systematic campaign of misrepresentation of the bill 
and its supporters was industriously prosecuted. The general pur¬ 
pose of the measure, the plain meaning of its provisions, the certain 
effect of the law in operation, the necessary and reasonable expense, 
each and all furnished theme for persistent falsification and malicious 
assault. An array of federal officeholders, joining with certain corp¬ 
oration agents and representatives of the. machine in the regular 
legislative lobby, moved upon the capitol, took possession of its cor¬ 
ridors, intruded upon the legislative halls, followed members to their 
hotels, tempted many with alluring forms of vice, and in some in- 



The Evolution and Revolution of tiie Primary. 


A 


stances brought them to the capitol in a state of intoxication to vote 
against the bill. This sets forth in part the character of the opposi¬ 
tion, but omits to take account of some of the means used, or 
attempted to be used, to prevent the passage of the measure.” 

This sounds like an indignant protest against specific acts be¬ 
lieved to be subversive of good government and in conflict with the 
higher political ethics. But before sharing in the governor’s indig¬ 
nation it is best to examine certain self evident facts that require 
no affidavits to establish their reliability. 

It is impossible to find a record of any “campaign of misrepre¬ 
sentation of the bill and its supporters” after the bill was intro¬ 
duced and while it was pending before the committee. The col¬ 
umns of the newspapers do not give any indication of such a cam¬ 
paign. The speeches made before the committee do not furnish 
the evidence required. The fact that the opposition was entirely 
at sea during that time was well known. With the exception of 
Mr. Monahan, wdio adopted as his motto, “pass the bill or kill it,” 
those opposed to the measure were in favor of a compromise, a 
fact that is made evident by Mr. Chynowetlrs statement that a 
compromise would not be considered. 

Second—It is charged in the complaint that the campaign of 
misrepresentation had to do with the “general purposes of the 
measure, the plain meaning of its provisions, the certain effect of 
the law in operation, and the necessary and reasonable expense.” 
Wisconsin people of today are in a position to know whether these 
points were misrepresented or fairly considered. 

Third—When the bill came up in the assembly under special 
order there was a call of the house. A roll call revealed the fact 
that five members were absent without leave and two with leave. 
No business could be transacted until the five members were found 
and escorted to the chamber, and no members could leave the cham¬ 
ber while the call was in force. As this was the time when the mob 
is supposed to have taken possession of the capitol, it may be of 
interest to note that members could not be “followed to their 
hotels” at a time when they could not leave the chamber, and no 
man in his right mind would tempt a member with “alluring forms 
of vice” under the conditions that obtained in the chamber. 

F our th—The “array of federal office holders” consisted of James 
G. Monahan, William G. Wheeler, and Henry Fink. These -men 
were present during the evening out of curiosity and an aroused 
interest in the question before the assembly. . two of them had 
offices in Madison, and, having been interested in public affairs for 
years, naturally drifted to the assembly chamber on that evening. 
Neither of them remained until the close of the act. Mr. Fink 
was in Madison on business. He did not go there, to attend the 
session, but, being there, he spent a part of the evening at the cap¬ 
itol, as is his custom. 

Fifth—If by “certain corporation agents” is meant the railroad 


44 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


representatives at Madison, every member of the legislature knows 
that they did not take a hand in the proceeding that evening. 
There were important bills pending before the legislature in which 
the railroads were interested and their representatives were careful 
not to offend the governor. There had been no breach between the 
corporations and the governor at that time. That came later. 
The primary bill did not affect the railroads in any way and their 
representatives were wise enough to keep “hands off” where the gov¬ 
ernor’s pet measure was concerned. Even if they had been dispos¬ 
ed to oppose the bill, open opposition on their part would have been 
sheer madness, and no one ever accused them of not knowing their 
business. 

Sixth—There was an unusual number of people at the capitol 
during the early hours of the night when the call of the house was 
in force. Many of them were interested in seeing the pending 
bill defeated while others were interested in seeing it pass. All 
had a right to be there. All were citizens of the state. The de¬ 
bate had aroused interest in the measure and the knowledge that 
it had been made a special order for that evening called out a 
crowd, but the crowd did not all go there to work for or against the 
bill. They were there out of curiosity, nothing more, and they did 
not stay until the end. The workers for the bill were as active, if 
not more so, than those who opposed it. Any reflection on the ac¬ 
tivity displayed by the opponents of the measure will reflect with 
equal force upon its friends. 

Seventh—It is true that there was one instance where a mem¬ 
ber was brought to the capitol “in a state of intoxication.” The 
case of this member was a peculiar one. When sober he was inclin¬ 
ed to question the divine right of the governor; when intoxicated 
he was an ardent administration supporter. He was under the in¬ 
fluence of the administration workers when he became intoxicated 
on that particular occasion, but he was stolen by the opposition 
and locked in a committee room to sober off. There were dozens of 
men in attendance that night who knew the facts relating to this 
incident. It was common knowledge among the members of the 
legislature. The search for the missing man by the administra¬ 
tion runners in was a warm one, but they did not find him until 
the opposition were satisfied that he knew “where he was at.” He 
was reported present at 10 o’clock p. m., and remained in the cham¬ 
ber during the night. He was entirely sober when he voted against 
the bill the following morning. 

Another member who had slept off the effects of copious pota¬ 
tions during the night was brought to the assembly chamber in the 
morning by the sergeant-at-arms and Henry Overbeck, an adminis¬ 
tration “whip.” This man voted to raise the call and to pass the 
bill. While he was not in a state of intoxication when brought to 
the chamber, he was suffering from recent overindulgence and re¬ 
fused to accompany the officer to the capitol until he was given a 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


45 


“bracer” to steady his nerves. The search for this member was a 
long one because he had realized his condition and found a hiding 
place into which the searchers could not penetrate. These w T ere 
the only men who were “brought to the chamber” to vote. This is 
the foundation upon which was built that part of the charge laid at 
the door of the legislature by Gov. La Follette which relates to the 
use of liquor as a corrupting agent on that particular occasion. 

This may not be as interesting a story of the all night session of 
March 19, 1901, as the one told by the La Follette press bureau 
later, but it has the advantage of being literally true and uncolored. 
\\ hat it lacks in sensationalism, in picturesqueness, in dramatic 
ioree, it makes up in veracity and harmony witli the facts. 

When morning came the administration forces had secured 
enough votes to order the bill to engrossment and third reading 
and they raised the call by a vote of 52 to 45. The previous ques¬ 
tion was ordered by a vote of 56 to 41 and the bill was ordered to a 
third reading by the same vote. It is manifest that some of the 
men who favored the passage of the bill—or at least voted for it 
when it came up—aided in preventing the call from being raised. 
There was no debate on the measure. 

An analysis of the vote by which the primary election bill was 
ordered to a third reading discloses the fact that—to adopt the 
terms that later came into use to designate the factions—of the 56 
votes for the measure 13 were cast by stalwarts, 2 by democrats and 
41 by half breeds. Of the 41 votes against the measure, 26 were 
cast by stalwarts and 15 by democrats. 

When the vote on the final passage of the measure was taken 
three days later, but 9 stalwarts voted in the affirmative while 31 
voted against it. Of the democrats 2 voted for and 16 against the 
bill. Forty-one half breeds, all there were in the assembly, voted 
in the affirmative. Had it not been for men who later became stal¬ 
warts, the primary election bill would have failed in the assembly. 

The vote by which the bill was ordered to engrossment and third 
reading was as follows: (Assembly Journal, page 589). 

Ayes.—Messrs. Ainsworth, Anderson, Andrew, Babb, Brunson, 
Cady, Clark, Coapman, Cook, Dahl, Duerrwaechter, Erickson, David 
Evans,Jr., Penlon, Frost, Galaway, Gilman, Haggerty, Hall, Hanson, 
Henry, Hodgins, Holland, F. Johnson, H. Johnson, Jones, Krumrey, 
Lane, Lenroot, McCormick, McGill, McMillan, Manuel, Middleton, 
Overbeck, Park, Price, Rankl, Roe, Rogers, Root, Rossman, Sarau, 
Silkworth, Smalley, Steiger, Stevens, Sturdevant, Swenhold, Thomas, 
Valentine, Whitson, Willott, Young, Zinn, and Mr. Speaker.—50. 

Noes.—Messrs. Barker, Barlow, Benson, Burdeau, Cleophas, Col¬ 
lins, Dodge, Dow, Eager, Ela, Eline, Evan W. Evans, Fessenfeld, 
Flaherty, Gagnon, Gawin, Hartung, Jenson, Johnston, Karel, Katz, 
Keene, Kern, McCabe, McComb, Maloney, L. A. Miller, Minor, Norton, 
Orton, Owen, Pomrening, Rasmussen, Schellenburg, Slade, Smith, 
Soltwedel, Spratt, Thiessenhausen, E. A. Williams, and J. C. Wil¬ 
liams.—41. 

Absent or not voting.—Messrs. Esau, Herman Miller, and Mol- 
denhauer.—3. 




46 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER X. 

The Primary Bill in the Senate. 

When the state senate convened in January, 1901, seventeen of 
the thirty-one republicans in that body were known to be adminis¬ 
tration men. They were: Senators Anson, Bissell, Burns, Fearne, 
Hatton, Knudson, Kreutzer, McGillivray, Martin, Miller, Mills, 
Munson, (PNiel, Riordan, Stebbins, Stout and Wolff. Senators 
Whitehead and Roehr already had made records as “progressives” 
that would have led any forecaster who judged by past performances 
—to use a sporting term—to place them in the same ranks. Senators 
Gaveney and Mosher, both new members, were progressives also and 
would, under normal conditions, have acted with the administra¬ 
tion. Of the remaining ten republicans in that body there 
was not one who would have made a fight against a reasonable pri¬ 
mary bill had one been proposed at the beginning and had the meth¬ 
ods used to promote it been such as would command the respect of 
a legislator who does his own thinking. Their names were: Sen¬ 
ators Green, Devoes, Eaton, Hagemeister, Harris, Jones, Mc¬ 
Donough, Reynolds, Morse and Willy. Senators Jacobs and Weed 
were the democratic members of that house. 

From this analysis it is clear that at the outset twenty-one mem¬ 
bers of the state senate were what may be called, “progressives” and 
were inclined to favor and support a primary bill that would redeem 
the platform pledge to the fullest extent consistent with safety and 
sound judgement. For four years Senator Whitehead had led the 
fight for taxation reforms and aided in the enactment of other pro¬ 
gressive legislation which will be mentioned at length under its ap¬ 
propriate headings. Senator Roehr had made a record on insur¬ 
ance and taxation legislation as well as in the perfection of the 
Milwaukee primary law. Both of these senators, together with 
Judge Orton and others in the assembly, had even been accused of 
radicalism, and some of their acts had been criticized as altogether 
too advanced and tending to approach the danger line. 

Yet the conditions that developed during the first six weeks of 
the legislative session of 1901, already briefly outlined, made it im¬ 
possible for them to co-operate with the administration that was 
driving the new red wagon of progress. ' They were willing to go 
forward, but they did not believe in trying to reach the end of the 
journey at one leap. They were willing to experiment with a pri¬ 
mary law, but they wanted a law that would not wreck political 
parties and put a premium on personal politics and the organiza¬ 
tion of personal machines. 

As has been explained, three of the original La Follette men 
were expelled from the ranks for insubordination and conduct un¬ 
becoming soldiers in the administration army—O'Neil, Kreutzer, 


The Evolution and Revolution of tiie Primary. 


47 


and Riordan. The four progressives who were disposed at first to 
act with the administiation, Whitehead, Roelir, Gaveney, and 
Mosher, were early given to understand that independence of opin¬ 
ion would not be tolerated and they, too, were literally driven into 
the opposition camp. Senator Bissell was converted to opposition 
to the primary law by the arguments before the committee. The 
conservatives naturally fell in with the men who had been ejected 
from the administration faction and those who had been refused 
admittance because they could not present proper credentials, and 
the stalwart faction in the senate was thus made up. Eighteen 
stalwart votes, to which were added those of the two democrats in 
the senate, were counted against the primary bill when it came up 
in that body on April 11. 

In order to establish a point of concentration for the opposition 
forces, Senators Hagemeister and Kreutzer each introduced a bill 
as a substitute, for the original primary bill No. 73S, introduced 
by Senator Miller. These measures were introduced on April 9, 
two days before the original primary bill came up for consideration,' 
and were placed in the files as substitutes No. 1 and 2, respectively. 
Senator Hagemeister’s bill provided for the nomination of candi¬ 
dates for county officers only, while the one introduced by Senator 
Kreutzer provided for the election of delegates to all conventions, 
as well as the nomination of county officers, at the primary election. 
The first was a crudelv drawn, brief measure that could not have 
been made effective had it been enacted into law; the second was 
more carefully prepared, and, had it passed, would have given an 
opportunity to fairly test the primary election plan under condi¬ 
tions favorable to success. Senator Kreutzer had taken many of 
the best features from the Milwaukee caucus law and incorporated 
them into his bill. Other features that would have added to its 
strength were omitted, but, on the whole, it was a measure worthy 
of consideration. 

When the vote was taken and the original primary bill was de¬ 
feated, 20 to 13, offers on the part of the administration senators 
of compromise measures were made, one after another, in rapid 
succession, but they were rejected. The Hagemeister bill was put 
forward by the stalwarts and Senator Hatton offered an amend¬ 
ment providing for the nomination of candidates for county officers 
and for the legislature by direct vote. Senator Miller offered the 
original primary bill, with a referendum clause. Senator Mc- 
Gillivray offered an amendment in the form of a substitute which 
provided for placing the names of candidates on the primary ballot 
by caucuses and conventions. All were voted down without 
hesitation. 

Senator Kreutzer then withdrew his proposed measure and 
offered an amendment to the Hagemeister bill in the form of a 
referendum clause submitting it to a vote of the people, which was 


48 ’ 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


carried. The Hagemeister bill was then passed by a vote of 20 
to 13. 

Where the administration made its mistake was in meeting all 
early suggestions of compromise with the statement that no ma¬ 
terial alteration or amendment to the original bill would be tol¬ 
erated. That is, this was a mistake if the object sought was the 
enactment of a primary law at that session of the legislature. If it 
was the governor’s purpose to play for position and secure an issue 
with which to go into the next campaign, the record is clear and no 
errors can be detected. It was the most astute political move that 
had ever been attempted in Wisconsin and it succeeded. The entire 
play was so carefully planned, so cleverly executed, and so cun¬ 
ningly used in the subsequent campaign that it cannot fail to excite 
the wondering admiration of the ordinary citizen who lacks genius 
in political manipulation but who approves of success at any cost 
and by any methods. 

An excuse for rejecting the proposed amendments and modifi¬ 
cations was found in the fact that they were not in absolute har¬ 
mony with the platform pledge of the republican party. No meas¬ 
ure less radical and revolutionary than the one proposed by the 
administration would redeem that pledge. But it must be remem¬ 
bered that the platform itself was the work of the same men—or 
man—who proposed to redeem it by the passage of the administra¬ 
tion bill. Those who opposed the radical plank in the platform 
had not been given an opportunity to vote against it, but that did 
not count. The plank was in the platform and it stands today as 
the officially recorded expression of a republican state convention. 

The stalwarts made a political mistake when they failed to pass 
an effective, workable substitute for the administration primary 
bill. The Hagemeister substitute was not such a measure. Experi¬ 
ence in Milwaukee county and some of the larger cities of the state 
was entirely ignored when that bill was drawn and it was, therefore, 
a step backward in the evolution of the primary. Had they accepted 
the substitute offered by Senator Hatton when the Hagemeister 
bill was pending they would have “played politics” to some effect 
and in all probability saved the state from the experiences under 
the present primary law. But they were not in a frame of mind to 
compromise. The contest had been forced by the administration. 
Both sides were stripped and gloved for a finish fight ; nothing 
short of a knockout would satisfv either. 

Gov. La Toilette was justified in vetoing the Hagemeister bill. 
He was not justified in sending to the senate an insult in the form 
of a message. That message, now printed in the official journal of 
the senate as a permanent record, is a stump speech intended for 
use in political campaigns and was unworthy of a governor who was 
addressing representatives of the people. There had been a differ¬ 
ence of opinion between the senate and the governor, between the 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 4,9 

legislative and executive departments, and that difference was upon 
a subject of legislation. The governor had a right to object to and 
veto a bill passed by the two houses; he had no right to scold like 
a fishwife because another bill, which he favored, was not enacted 
into law. It is not surprising, therefore, that the senate, in a reso¬ 
lution introduced by Senator Iloehr, after quoting from the mes¬ 
sage some of the most violently abusive and demonstrably untruth¬ 
ful paragraphs, wrote into the official records the following pro¬ 
test against the outrage: 

“This message, containing these statements, appears at large 
upon pages 102 6 to 103 5 of the journal of the senate. We therefore 
claim our privilege as senators to have it appear upon the record of 
our proceedings that we do not allow these statements of the gov¬ 
ernor to pass unchallenged, and that upon any view of his consti¬ 
tutional prerogative we deny that he is justified in thus addressing 
the legislature. We hold that ‘no sense of obligation’ on the part 
of the governor can excuse such grave reflections upon the mem¬ 
bers of the legislature as are contained in the portions of the mes¬ 
sage above quoted. 

“We recognize the constitutional right of the governor freely to 
express his views upon the policy and validity of any legislation 
submitted to him for his approval but we hold that the use of such 
expressions as are above specifically referred to, transcend all 
bounds of official propriety and constitutional right. 

“We protest, therefore, most earnestly as members of the legis¬ 
lature against the aspersions cast upon our official acts, upon our 
personal motives, and upon our private characters by the governor 
in his message to the legislature.” 

It was just such emergencies as this that President George 
Washington had in mind when he wrote the paragraph quoted 
below into his farewell address. At the close of his official career, 
after an experience of two terms in the office of chief executive of 
a nation of self governing people, the first president saw clearly 
to what length the lust of power would at times lead ambitious 
men, and he pointed out the necessity of keeping all public officers 
strictly within constitutional bounds. His words were not written 
to apply to a special case. They were a general statement of a 
principle of government that must be observed if this nation is 
to remain free and independent. He said: 

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free 
country should inspire caution in those intrusted with the admin¬ 
istration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional 
spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to 
encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to con¬ 
solidate the powers of all departments in one, and thus to create, 
whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just esti¬ 
mate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which pre¬ 
dominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth 
of this position. The .necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise 
of political power, by dividing it and distributing it into different 
depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal 
against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments 
ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our 


50 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute 
them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modifica¬ 
tion of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it 
be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution 
designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though 
this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the custom¬ 
ary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The pre¬ 
cedent must always greatly over-balance in permanent evil any par¬ 
tial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” 

That Gov. La Follette did not succeed in usurping the powers 
and constitutional prerogatives of the legislature was not his 
fault. The senate refused to permit him to dictate its action as a 
legislative body. The result was that, angered at the denial of 
despotic power which he craved, he wrote the message against 
which the senate placed upon record an official protest. 

After the adjournment of the legislature the administration 
faction issued a “voters’ handbook,” in which it was charged that 
all offers to compromise had been rejected by the senate. This is 
true. It is also true that all previous offers to compromise had 
been rejected by the executive. The only difference was that the 
stalwarts, in their innocence and unskilled in shrewd political 
games of cunning and finesse, failed to put their offers of com¬ 
promise on record by introducing bills. 

It was at this point that the stalwarts were outgeneraled. 
They considered only the business before them and failed to make 
a record of their position to be used in their defense before the 
people in the campaign that followed. They were, most of them, 
experienced legislators, but they were not masters of the political 
game. Furthermore, they regarded Gov. La Follette as a repub¬ 
lican and did not foresee the bitter fight within the party that was 
to follow. La Follette had the advantage as he no doubt had his 
course mapped out at that time. 

The stalwarts proposed one amendment after another, but 
they did not make an official record of that fact. The administra¬ 
tion men, on the other hand, when they found their bill was 
doomed and knowing that, in their present state of exasperation, 
the stalwarts would not consent to forego the advantage of sup¬ 
erior numbers and permit the radicals to pass even a compromise 
bill, went after a record and they got it. They introduced amend¬ 
ment after amendment only to see them defeated—they were in¬ 
troduced for the purpose of having them defeated. They had no 
intention of passing them. They did not wish to pass them. 
Their record play was made in one evening after the close of the 
debate in which the only question discussed was the one of passing 
the original assembly bill. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


51 


CHAPTER XI. 

The Wisconsin Republican League. 

As this is a history of the primary election movement in Wis¬ 
consin it is unnecessary to go into details with respect to all of the 
incidents that punctuated the political feud born in the opening 
months of Gov. La Follette’s first administration and continuing 
with increasing bitterness for four years. But, whatever the real 
cause of the feud may have been, the defeat of the administration 
primary hill by the state senate was the excuse publicly put forth 
in justification of the declaration of war by Gov. La Follette him¬ 
self. There is reason to believe another issue would have been 
made to serve the purpose had this one failed, for there are ambi¬ 
tious men who can thrive only through agitation. But the pri¬ 
mary bill had been defeated and it was therefore made the issue to 
the defense of which the personal admirers of the governor could 
be rallied. It was a providential hone of contention that would 
furnish an opportunity for just the kind of a fight most desired by 
the Wisconsin Xapoleon of politics. 

The record of that political contest is one of which Wisconsin 
men have no occasion to be proud—and the end is not yet. It is 
a record of passion and prejudice; a record of intense bitterness; 
a record of persecution and reprisal, of wrong and retaliation; a 
record of broken friendships and the birth of lasting enmities; a 
record of “malice, hatred and all uncharitableness.” Reputable, 
clean business and professional men were arraigned before the bar 
of public opinion, tried, and unjustly convicted, without a hear¬ 
ing, of all'manner of offenses against the common good. Private 
citizens who cherished no political ambitions were assumed to have 
committed the most serious political crimes and the assumption 
was accepted as conclusive evidence of their guilt. 

The rule that “every seed shall bring forth fruit after its kind” 
is a universal law, as certain and immutable in its operations in 
the mental as in the physical realm. Where malice is planted 
malice will spring up and bear fruit after its kind. Suspicion, 
distrust, falsehood, injustice, all germinate and grow like rank 
weeds in the human soul and choke out the beneficent and nobler 
promptings of friendship based on mutual confidence, esteem and 
brotherly love. 

The pernicious seeds of political and social-discord were scat¬ 
tered broadcast throughout the state, and, be it said to our shame, 
there were so many citizens who were prepared to believe the worst 
that could be said about their fellows that the crop harvested was 
a bountiful one. Neighbor was arrayed against neighbor and 
brother against brother; social circles were divided and the influ¬ 
ence of the controversy in some instances invaded the sacred places 


52 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


and church congregations were in a measure affected by it. The 
old good natured rivalry that had characterized contests between 
the republican and democratic parties became a memory, for demo¬ 
crats trespassed upon republican ground and took a hand in the 
factional fight, the social democrats standing back meanwhile and 
vociferously applauding every abusive epithet hurled by either 
faction at the other. 

Of a truth, Wisconsin cut a sorry figure before high heaven and 
in the face of the peoples of the earth in the year 1902. 

After the adjournment of the legislature steps were taken to 
organize in an effective manner the members who were opposed to 
the methods and policies of the administration. Eighteen senators 
and forty-one members of the assembly joined in this movement. 
Of the eighteen senators, all had voted against the administration 
primary election bill. Of the forty-one assemblymen, twenty- 
eight had voted against the bill when it came up for engrossment 
and third reading and thirteen had voted for it. The thirteen 
were Speaker George H. Ray, and Assemblymen Frost, Hanson, 
Jones, Lane, Rossman, Willott, Young, Duerrwachter, Haggerty, 
F. Johnson, Park, Silkworth. Eight of these assemblymen also 
voted for the bill when it came up for final passage in the assembly. 
They were: Speaker Ray, and Messrs. Frost, Hanson, Jones, 
Lane, Rossman, Willott, and Young. 

As an explanation of the reasons that inspired' them to organize 
a league, these members of the legislature issued a public state¬ 
ment, called by the administration newspapers a “manifesto,” in 
which they set forth plainly the principles for which it was their 
purpose to contend as an organization. Unlike most public docu¬ 
ments of the kind this statement is not too long for reproduction 
and it is here given in full together with the names of all the 
signers as they appeared in the columns of The Sentinel on Aug. 
18, 1901. 

“To the Republicans of Wisconsin: 

“The undersigned, republican members of the legislature of 
1901, are convinced that the republican party of Wisconsin is upon 
the verge of a crisis which can only be averted by organized effort 
on the part of all republicans who consider party welfare above 
personal ambition. 

“As representatives of the people, we view with alarm the 
persistent effort to strengthen the executive at the expense of the 
legislative department of the state. 

“The constitution says: ‘The legislative power shall be vested 
in the senate and assembly.’ The perpetuity of our institutions de¬ 
pends upon the independence and integrity of each of the co¬ 
ordinate branches of our government. Neither is responsible to the 
other, but each is responsible to the people. Neither should submit 
to dictation from the other. Any attempt to subordinate the legisla¬ 
tive department to the control of the executive is revolutionary and 
deserves prompt and emphatic rebuke. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


53 


“The public interest demands that among the several depart¬ 
ments of government there be cordial and courteous co-operation. 

“These propositions are so fundamental that they are more vital 
than party success itself. 

“Many unwarrantable interferences with the exclusive powers 
of the legislature and attempts to coerce acquiescence in unreason¬ 
able acts and unwise experiments at the last session were contrary 
to the welfare of the people of Wisconsin, and created bitter fac¬ 
tional differences in the republican party. 

“The party must not permit itself to be divided, and possibly 
destroyed by factional disputes. Its purposes are too high, its work 
too important, to be dominated for personal ends. 

“For these reasons we present to you the necessity of a whole¬ 
some organization, which shall truly represent the whole party and 
safeguard its principles. We have not in contemplation an organ¬ 
ization for a single campaign, but one that shall be permanent and 
as comprehensive as the party it represents. 

“In furtherance of such an organization, rooms have been 
leased on the eleventh floor of the Herman building, in Milwaukee, 
where all republicans will be welcome, and where opportunity will 
be afforded to enroll in the Wisconsin Republican league.” 

In the light of subsequent events this statement of principles 
reads like a prophecy. The league failed in its mission and the 
party it was designed to save from disruption was disorganized. 
It is surprising that so temperate a statement of important, not to 
say fundamental, truths should excite such violent antagonism, but 
the fact that the organized members who put forth this statement 
of principles were variously designated as “the Bolters’ league,” 
“the Eleventh Story league,” the “platform repudiators,” the “cor- 
porationists,” the “corruptionists,” and were given other and kind¬ 
red titles of reproach, was not calculated to restore a cordial, 
friendly understanding between the wings of the party. 

In view of the fact that the people of Wisconsin have for four 
years lived amid the alleged blessings that are inseparable from the 
primary election plan in full and complete operation, the men who 
signed a statement in which that system of making nominations 
was described as an “unreasonable and unwise experiment” are 
entitled to have their names printed with the statement. Nor will 
they object to have the people of the state reminded that they fav¬ 
ored a modified form of the law in 1901. In order that the history 
of the movement may be made complete the names of the signers 
are here given: 

Senators..—W. H. Bissell, Lodi; William H. Devos, Milwaukee; 
Barney A. Eaton, Milwaukee; John C. Gaveney, Arcadia; J. Herbert 
Green, Milwaukee; Henry Hagemeister, Green Bay; John Harris, 
Elkhorn; A. M. Jones, Waukesha; A. L. Kreutzer, Wausau; Frank 
McDonough, Eau Claire; Elmer D. Morse, Princeton; O. W. Mosher, 
New Richmond; William O’Neil, Washburn; John F. Reynolds, 
Genoa Junction; D. E. Riordan, Eagle River; Julius E. Roehr, Mil¬ 
waukee; John M. Whitehead, Janesville; Albert T. Willy, Appleton; 

Assemblymen.—Charles Barker, Milwaukee; John M. Barlow, 
New Lisbon; Willard E. Burdeau, Flintville; H. Cleopas, Beloit; 


54 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


A. Clark Dodge, Monroe; Everett E. Dow, La Grange; P. G. Duerr- 
wachter, South Germantown; Almeron Eager, Evansville; George 
Ela, Rochester; Fred J. Frost, Almond; John A. Haggerty, Ferry- 
ville; Andrew C. Hansen, Mindora; Fred Hartung, Wauwatosa; 
Andrew Jensen, New London; Franklin Johnson, Baraboo; James 
Johnston, Mukwonago; Evan R. Jones, Sparta; Francis B. Keene, 
Milwaukee; Nathan E. Lane, Phillips; Joseph Maloney, Bloomer; 
Edwin A. Miller, Hixon; Herman Miller, Wausau; Levi A. Miner, 
South Milwaukee; John E. Norton, Milwaukee; Philo A. Orton, Dar¬ 
lington; John W. Owen, Racine; Harry J. Park, Spring Valley; 
Herman Pomrening, Milwaukee; K. E. Rasmussen, Rice Lake; 
George H. Ray, La Crosse; George P. Rossman, Ashland; Charles A. 
Silkworth, Osseo; Dwight S. Slade, Slades Corners; Albert E. Smith, 
Delevan; Henry J. Soltwedel, Milwaukee; George Spratt, Sheboygan 
Falls; R. F. Thiessenhusen, Milwaukee; Edwin A. Williams, 
Neenah; Joseph Willott, Jr., Manitowoc; John H. Young, Eau 
Claire. 

In the legislature of 1901 there were thirty-one republican 
senators and eighty-one republican members of the assembly. 
Two senators died before the organization of the league—Senators 
Stebbins and Fearne—leaving but twenty-nine republican senators 
in August, 1901. The names of eighteen of the twenty-nine mem¬ 
bers of the upper bouse appear on the membership roll of the 
league, and forty-one of the eight-one members of the lower house 
also signed the roll. The membership of the new organization 
thus embraced a majority of the republicans in each bouse and a 
majority of the entire republican membership of the legislature 
had they met in joint session. 


The Evolution and Revolution oe the Primary. 


55 


CHAPTER XII. 

The Campaign That Followed. 

The campaign conducted by both factions during the fifteen 
months following the publication of the league statement was a 
lively one, but it is not one that can be pointed to with pride even 
by those who triumphed at the polls. Whatever experience the 
members of the league had gained in past campaigns was used for 
the purpose of perfecting a statewide organization. The term 
“perfecting” is employed in this instance from force of habit, but 
the literal definition of the word does not accurately describe the 
organization of the Wisconsin Republican league. Still, it would 
have served the purpose had there not been another political organ¬ 
ization in existence that year. Gov. La Follette had “perfected” 
his political machine and he gave a new meaning, a new interpreta¬ 
tion to the word in Wisconsin. The league had members in every 
county; Gov. La Follette had workers in every voting precinct. 
The league started out to make a poll of the state; Gov. La Follette 
already had a most complete poll and mailing list when he was in¬ 
augurated and he had improved it from month to month. The 
league succeeded in securing a reasonably complete poll of eleven 
counties and a partial list of voters in about half of the remaining 
counties; Gov. La Follette not only had his list of republican voters 
in every precinct of the state, but he also had in his possession the 
names of thousands of Bryan democrats who were classed by him 
under the heading “fair minded,” and regularly supplied with 
literature. 

The contest was in fact between the executive and legislative 
departments of the state government. The question at issue was 
whether the executive should be permitted to dictate the form and 
substance of legislative enactments. Stripped of all superfluous 
and bewildering generalities as well as personalities, this was all 
' there was to fight about. The governor had a reform program 
which it was his purpose to see established in Wisconsin and this 
program included the enactment of certain laws into which must 
be incorporated certain well defined provisions about which he had 
been talking for years. The legislature declined to accept the 
governor’s program without modification. The executive insisted; 
the legislature stood firm upon its constitutional right to determine 
for itself what laws shall be enacted. The executive accused the 
legislature of the grave offense of repudiating a plank in the plat¬ 
form he had himself dictated; the legislature replied that the 
executive was attempting to usurp the functions of the legislative 
branch of the government. 

But, while this issue was not lost sight of in the campaign, the 
great mass of the voters of the state were bewildered by the flood 


56 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


of argument and the tidal wave or personalities that attended upon 
the campaign as it progressed. It was specifically charged by the 
administration faction that the stalwarts represented “special in¬ 
terests” as opposed to a great reform movement; that “organized 
greed” was arrayed to defeat the purposes of a highly virtuous and 
wholly unselfish band of patriots whose sole aim was to serve the 
people intelligently and faithfully. It was even asserted that the 
contest was between “the people” on one side and “the machine” 
on the other. 

As the split in the party had been caused by the primary election 
dispute—or, to be more exact. Gov. La Follette had used that issue 
as an excuse for perfecting a personal organization—the primary 
election proposition was naturally one of the most important mat¬ 
ters discussed in the campaign. Isaac Stephenson, one of Gov. La 
Follette’s backers, now junior United States senator, had gener¬ 
ously joined with other enthusiastic members of the administra¬ 
tion faction and supplied enough money to establish the Free 
Press. The columns of that paper were used to defend the gover¬ 
nor’s policies, while The Sentinel was employed to defend the Wis¬ 
consin Republican league. But neither paper devoted all of its 
time to the defensive side of the campaign. Both took the offen¬ 
sive on occasions. It may be explained here that the word “offen¬ 
sive” is used in this connection in the fullest acceptation of the 
term. 

In carrying out the work of the league, of which W. H. Bissell 
had been made chairman and Col. Dan B. Starkey secretary, a 
large amount of literature was prepared and distributed. The 
country press was appealed to and many of the local papers 
throughout the state accepted and printed articles prepared by the 
secretary of the league and his assistants. Letters were written 
by voluntary contributors and printed in The Sentinel and other 
papers; thousands of circulars were prepared and distributed 
through the mails. As the campaign warmed up discussions Were 
common on the streets and in public places generally in which the 
primary election plan was not the least interesting subject of de¬ 
bate. 

At the same time the campaign of the administration faction 
was going forward apace and the same methods were used as were 
employed by the league. Wherever a country newspaper could 
be induced to aid the “cause” it was employed and praised for its 
disinterested service to the governor and liis reform campaign. The 
The Free Press matched The Sentinel column for column, editorial 
for editorial, and letter for letter. In point of fact, a careful ex¬ 
amination of the files will show that The Sentinel fell behind in 
the race if the total amount of space devoted to factional politics 
—for state politics had given place to factional polities for the time 
being—were measured. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 5 ? 

The arguments for and against the primary election law pro¬ 
posed by Gov. La Follette can not be reproduced here at length, nor 
is it necessary to attempt to do so. The points urged by the 
friends and opponents of the measure are all that is necessary for 
the student of this time to weigh the comparative merits of the two 
sides to the controversy. One of the peculiar features of the cam¬ 
paign, however, should be mentioned. The administration fac¬ 
tion insisted that their bill, proposing as it did an entirely new 
system of making nominations, must not be classed as an experi¬ 
ment. It must be accepted as sound in principle and any doubt 
as to its success in practical operation was sternly forbidden. Gov. 
La Follette himself gave expression to this view in his message 
vetoing the Hagemeister bill when he said: “The general pur¬ 
pose of the measure, the plain meaning of its provisions, THE 
CERTAIN EFFECT OF THE LAW IN OPERATION, the 
necessary and reasonable expense, each and all furnished theme for 
persistent falsification and malicious assault.’’ 

A careful reading of the literature of the period, consisting of 
editorials, news reports, letters from private citizens to the press, 
and pamphlets and circulars that have been preserved in private 
collections, disclosed the following specific points urged by the two 
parties to the controversy in explanation of their support of or op¬ 
position to the proposed law: 

FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

1. The republican platform of 1900 distinctly and unequivocal¬ 
ly demanded that all caucuses and conventions should be abolished 
and all candidates for office should be nominated by a direct vote. 

2. “For many years the evils of the caucus and convention 

system have multiplied and baffled all attempts at legislative con¬ 
trol or correction.” The delegate elected at caucuses to represent 
the voter “too frequently has his own interests at heart * * * 

and serves his own purposes.” , 

3. The right to vote for candidates of the party includes the 
right to select those candidates. The member of a party has 
a right to participate in the making of the party ballot. 

4. The convention system of making nominations offered an 
opportunity which was seized upon by “men possessed of the talent 
of combination, manipulation, and political management,” and the 
political machine was thus established in power. 

5. The officials nominated by the machine became the servants 
of the machine and surrendered their judgments to its will. 

6. Even at best, were the conventions to be entirely free from 
machine rule, they are not deliberative bodies and their work is 
usually done under conditions where “noisy enthusiasm outweighs 
the strongest argument.” 

7. The people “know enough to nominate their own candidates 
for office without the aid or dictation of bosses, caucuses and con¬ 
vention manipulators, and political machines.” 

8. “The people now elect their officers by use of the Australian 
ballot. In the primary election they would nominate their candi¬ 
dates for office by use of the same Australian ballot.” 

9. “When candidates are chosen by a direct vote, a coterie of 


58 


Political Reform iist Wisconsin. 


Milwaukee professional politicians can no longer hold the state in 
the hollow of their hands and dictate nominations to the people.” 

10. The primary election question has been before the people 
of the state a sufficient time to enable them to understand it and 
it was “overwhelmingly approved by the voters because they were 
everywhere ready for it.” 

11. Direct nominations under a primary election means direct 
responsibility to the people. 

12. “Nothing is expensive that gives good government. Noth¬ 
ing so expensive as poor government. One set of inefficient or 
dishonest officials will waste more than many primary elections will 
cost.” 

13. The primary election bill was defeated by “a systematic 
campaign of misrepresentation. The general purpose of the mea¬ 
sure, the plain meaning of its provisions, the certain effect of the 
law in operation, the necessary and reasonable expense, each and 
all furnished theme for persistent falsification and malicious as¬ 
sault.” 

FOR THE NEGATIVE. 

1. The administration primary bill would have disorganized 
parties and built up personal machines. 

2. In the form presented to the legislature it was unconstitu¬ 
tional. (This objection was urged by Senator Whitehead, but the 
test never has been made in the courts). 

3. The development of personal machines would lead to the 
lavish use of money in campaigns and corruption would follow 7 as a 
necessary and natural consequence. 

4. It would make office seeking a profession in w T hich ex¬ 
perience would be of great advantage to the candidate. 

5. The necessity of circulating petitions would furnish ad¬ 
ditional occupation and open a new avenue of profit to the political 
mercenaries. 

6. The poor man would be restrained by his poverty and the 
modest man by his modesty from becoming candidates for nomi¬ 
nations, even though they be well equipped to perform the duties 
of office. 

7. Public servants w^ould be in danger of being dragged, will¬ 
ingly or unwillingly, into the ruck of political activity, as they 
would constitute a ready made machine that could be used with 
almost irresistable effect in a primary campaign and the temptation 
to use them would be more than the average state administration 
could resist. 

8. The system would give to the cities an undue influence in 
making up the party ticket because the primaries would occur at a 
time when the farmers would be busy and not disposed to attend. 
By failing to attend the primaries the farmers would lose all voice 
in the selection of candidates. 

9. The organization of party committees for service at the pri¬ 
maries would furnish another machine, with ramifications in every 
voting precinct, and the possession of a list of these committeemen 
would inure to the advantage of the candidate favored by the state 
committee chairman. While under the old system party committee¬ 
men were expected to aid in the election of the party ticket only, 
in the primary election campaign and at the primary election itself 
the same officers would have no party interest to serve, the in¬ 
terests of the individual candidates for nominations being para¬ 
mount. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


59 


10. The holding of primary elections would entail a large ex¬ 
pense upon the taxpayers without any corresponding benefit. 

11. If all conventions were abolished no means would be pro¬ 
vided for the members of the party to make its platforms, that 
duty—and privilege—devolving on the candidates whose aim would 
be to get elected without regard to the principles in which the 
members of the party believed. 

12. The voters would be required to select candidates from a 
list of names of men of whom, in many cases, they would have but 
slight knowledge, and some of whom they would not know even 
by reputation, and upon whose qualifications and fitness for office 
they could not, in the nature of things, pass intelligent judgment. 

13. That party conventions, county, district and state, were 
the forums in which questions of policy were debated and decided, 
and as such they had an educative value. 

14. A nomination at a primary would almost invariably be a 
minority nomination and would not, therefore, represent the will 
of a majority of the party. 

15. Under the system proposed there was no way of restraining 
the members of one party from participating in the primaries, and 
aiding in the nominations of the candidates, of another party, there¬ 
by defeating the will of the majority—or even a predominant mi¬ 
nority—of the party whose primary is invaded. 

16. That where democrats participate in the nomination of 
republican candidates and republicans in the nominations of demo¬ 
cratic candidates, which invariably would occur when one party had 
a safe and sure majority in a district, state or city, parties could not 
be held responsible for the official acts of public officers. 

17. That party organizations, and, at the same time, party 
responsibility, were subordinated by the primary election plan to 
the personal interests of ambitious men with sufficient money or 
with personal organizations large enough to promise success. The 
party would have no way of protecting itself from any man who 
might contend for one of its nominations at the primary, making 
use of members of other parties to swell his vote. 

18. That the primary election system of nominating candidates 
was a departure from the principles of representative government 
and was, therefore, not a “progressive movement,” but a backward 
step. 

19. The American system of government by parties was the 
only one under which a great republic with nearly a hundred mil¬ 
lions of people could be wisely and safely governed, as parties could 
be held responsible for the acts of their representatives. When ad¬ 
ministrations failed or public servants were delinquent or false to 
their trust, the party they represented could be punished at the 
polls, as frequently had been done in the past. 

20. The proposed law was at best an experiment, and it would 
be unwise to abandon entirely the old system until a trial could be 
made to ascertain from actual experience to what extent the new 
plan could be made safe, convenient and workable. 

21. That where experiments had been tried with the primary 
election system the results had not been so uniformly satisfactory 
as to justify an unqualified indorsement of the plan. 

22. That Wisconsin had never been a “boss ridden” state, as 
charged, and that there was no crying need of a radical, revolution¬ 
ary movement for the banishment of a purely imaginary evil. 

23. That the list of distinguished citizens who had served the 
state in congress, in cabinet positions, and in executive, administra- 


60 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


tive, and legislative offices was a sufficient answer to the charge that 
“specal interests” ruled Wisconsin and that a sweeping reform was 
needed in the method of selecting candidates for office. 

State Senator John M. Whitehead of Janesville became the 
stalwart candidate for the republican nomination for governor in 
opposition of Gov. La Follette. He did not seek the honor. On 
the contrary, for some weeks he resolutely refused to enter the race. 
He had already served one term in the state senate and had been 
re-elected in 1900. As a member of that body he had taken part in 
the movement that resulted in the establishment of the permanent 
state tax commission. The work in the senate was congenial to 
him. He was in thorough sympathy with the members of the tax 
commission in their desire to solve the vexing problems assigned to 
them and believed it was his duty to stay in the legislature where 
there was work to do in which he felt a lively interest and for 
which experience and study had qualified him. 

But his fellow 7 members of the league thought differently. They 
had been and were being represented as corruptionists, the poli¬ 
tical agents of “special interests,” the corrupt tools and associates 
of corporations. They believed they could win the election and 
disprove the accusations by presenting as their candidate a man of 
tried and proved ability and integrity, one whose public and pri¬ 
vate character would bear the closest scrutiny; a man who could not 
be bought or intimidated; one wdio was not a politician in the or¬ 
dinary acceptation of that term, ar^l whose sole aim was to give his 
constituents the best service of which he was capable in return for 
the honor conferred on him; one wdio would not attempt to boss 
others and who could not be bossed. It was these considerations 
that induced the league membership to urge upon Senator White- 
head that lie consent to become their candidate to contest the nom¬ 
ination with Gov. La Follette, and in the end they prevailed. 

As an aid to the campaign of the league Senator Whitehead 
wrote a series of letters that were first printed in The Sentinel 
and then published in supplement form for use by the state press. 
In the opening series of these letters the primary election plan, as 
embodied in the adminstration measure defeated in 1901, was 
taken up and discussed at length. Like everything Senator White- 
head writes, the letters were entirely free from personalities. They 
w 7 ere characterized by calm, judicial argument, and extended quo¬ 
tations from public records were made to establish the correctness 
of his statements and the soundness of his conclusions. As a mat¬ 
ter of fact, the quotations were so long and the arguments so close 
and analytical that the letters did not make lively reading and, 
as a natural consequence, they did not have the effect they should 
have had. 

In the heat of one of the most whirlwindy of all whirlwind 
campaigns, when he found himself being held up to public scorn 


» 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 61 

in the administration newspapers and ridiculed by cartoon in cam¬ 
paign textbooks and elsewhere, when passions were at white heat 
and no man who took part in the campaign in any capacity, much 
less a candidate, could escape personal abuse, these letters and the 
public addresses later delivered by Senator Whitehead were an¬ 
achronisms. But their wholesomeness was beyond dispute. So 
far as he was personally concerned, Senator Whitehead conducted 
a clean campaign, and history must do him justice for the honor¬ 
able part he played. That the voters appreciate his worth when 
they have an opportunity to know him well and judge of him at ' 
first hand, and not through a distorted image portrayed by pre¬ 
judice and passion, is shown by the fact that he is still in the state 
senate, having been elected for the fourth time by his constituents 
in 1908. 


62 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XIII. 

Gov. La Follette Re-elected. 

Gov. La Follette was renominated over the opposition of the 
Wisconsin Republican league and re-elected in November. While 
the league did not contest his election as an organization, it was no 
secret that the members bolted in large numbers. In 1900 his 
total vote was 264,419, and his net plurality over the democratic 
candidate, Louis G. Bomrich, was 103,745. In 1902 his total vote 
was 193,417—a falling off of 71,002—and his net plurality over 
David S. Rose, the democratic candidate, was 47,599. But the 
figures showing the shrinkage of the republican vote do not give 
a complete understanding of the republican bolt or indicate to 
what extent the republican party was divided. Thousands of 
democrats who had been “regular” since W. J. Bryan captured the 
Chicago convention in 1896 were in full sympathy with Gov. La 
Follette and his reforms. They voted for him in companies, bat¬ 
talions, and regiments. They were, interchangeably, Bryan demo¬ 
crats or La Follette republicans, whatever the occasion might call 
for. And their assistance had been industriously solicited. 

The plan and method by which the election was attained were 
new to Wisconsin politics. There was no precedent in the state 
for the perfect organization and efficient discipline that character¬ 
ized the administration machine. With the exception of the cam¬ 
paign two years later, at which time both sides to the controversy 
had added to their store of experience in the line of campaign or¬ 
ganization and management, and were more evenly matched in 
consequence, it is beyond question that the campaign of 1902 stands 
without a parallel in the history of Wisconsin. 

The state employes, inclusive of those under the civil service 
rule, and large numbers of young men in attendance as students 
at the University of Wisconsin, were organized as a working force 
in the interests of the administration faction. There were times 
when the state house was practically deserted except by a clerical 
force employed in folding and mailing campaign literature. Heads * 
of departments were in the field doing campaign work and they were 
accompanied by their clerks and other subordinates. Employes of 
state institutions contributed their share to the, total amount of po¬ 
litical work done. And in the prosecution of this campaign party 
lines were entirely ignored. Lists of “fair minded” democrats, as 
all Bryan democrats were called, were at hand and the campaign 
was taken to their doors both by circulars, campaign documents, and 
personal solicitation. The result was that Gov. La Follette was 
re-elected, notwithstanding a bolt that split the republican party 
practically in two. 

At this point it is worth while to pause for a glance at one 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


63 


feature of the campaign of 1902 that is not altogether sad. There 
is a grim humor about the incident, although it was not intended 
to excite merriment, that is refreshing, not to say inspiring. 

It is a well known fact that Senator John C. Spooner was not a 
believer in the primary election plan of abolishing political evils. 
He had never been a politician. He had himself remarked to 
friends that, should he attempt to organize his own ward for an 
election, it would be sure to go democratic. But the people of 
Wisconsin had counted him as a statesman and did not require that 
he should develop political cunning and sagacity. They were satis¬ 
fied with him as he was. He had made a record during twelve years 
in the upper house of congress that justified his friends in believing 
in his understanding of statecraft. 

Senator Spooner had written a letter in 1900 in which he 
announced that, for private and personal reasons which it was 
unnecessary to explain, he would not be a candidate for re-election 
in 1903. At no time after giving that letter to the press had he 
indicated by written statement or spoken word that he was likely 
to reconsider the determination there expressed. 

The governor was now in the saddle, absolute master of a re¬ 
publican convention in 1902, engineer of the most perfect political 
machine ever constructed in a middle western state, if not in the 
United States, and full of the arrogance of power. He itched to 
take a fall out of Senator Spooner. 

The convention adopted a platform in which the following plank 
had a conspicuous place. 

“We especially commend the official career of the Hon. John C. 
Spooner who, by his notably able, conservative, and patriotic course 
upon questions of national and international importance, has become a 
leader in the United States senate. We again express regret for his 
announced determination not to serve the state another term in the 
senate, and should he now find it possible to reconsider his decision and 
express his willingness to stand as a candidate in harmony with the 
sentiment and in support of the platform principles here adopted hy 
Wisconsin republicans in state convention, and for the election of a 
legislature favorable to their enactment into law, his decision would 
meet with the approval of republicans everywhere, and we pledge him 
the enthusiastic support of the party for his re-election to the high 
position which he has filled with such distinguished ability and with such 
honor to the state and nation. And in case Senator Spooner shall not 
find it possible to again be a candidate for United States Senator, we 
demand that all candidates for this position shall indorse the principles 
of this platform and favor the election of a legislature pledged to enact 
those principles into law.” 

The convention then re-adopted the platform of 1900 and spe¬ 
cifically repeated the language of the primary election plank con¬ 
tained therein. 

There is no record evidence that Senator Spooner ever made a 
pilgrimage to the shrine at Madison or kowtowed to the governor 
as a consideration for a re-election to the United States senate. He 


64 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


never promised to be good so far as the public is aware. He never 
became a candidate, if a withdrawal of his letter announcing that 
he would not stand for re-election was necessary to make him a 
candidate. He simply kept silent and when the time came to elect 
a senator the honor was tendered to him by the unanimous vote of 
all the republicans in the legislature. 

Here was an instance where a platform pledge was ignored 
without any published protest on the part of the maker. If the 
plank quoted means anything, it means that Senator Spooner must 
recant, express his sorrow for his failure or refusal to give the 
primary election movement aid and comfort, and get out in the 
field and boost it along. The platform said this was the condition 
under which he would be spared. And yet Senator Spooner, who 
never even made a pretense of seeking harmony; who never, either 
publicly or privately, gave the proposed law his indorsement; who 
never even “passed the time of day” with the governor; who was 
not a candidate for re-election, was unanimously chosen to be his 
own successor under conditions that made it impossible for him to 
decline. 

The only explanation of the incident is that at the time the 'Con¬ 
vention was held, Gov. La Follette overestimated his strength, and 
that he later discovered he had undertaken a task he could not 
perform. The contract was too big for him. But one thing he 
did do: He gave a convincing illustration of a “boss ruled con¬ 
vention,” an unusual thing in Wisconsin prior to 1900. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


65 


CHAPTER XIV. 

The Primary Bill in 1903. 

When the legislature convened in January, 1903, Gov. La Follette 
had an overwhelming majority .in the assembly, but he had failed 
to secure a majority of .the senate, although he did succeed in 
electing ten of the eighteen new members of that body, R. Reukema 
having been chosen by the voters of the Fourteenth district, Mil¬ 
waukee, to succeed William H. Devos, resigned to accept the post 
of collector of the port of Milwaukee. 

The newly elected administration members of the senate were: 
H. C. Martin, W. H. Hatton, James H. Stout, and James J. 
McGillivray, all re-elected; H. P. Bird, R. Reukema, H. C. Wipper- 
man, George B. Hudnall, Christian Sarau, and George Wylie. Ernst 
Merton of Waukesha, a democrat who had been elected to succeed 
Senator A. M. Jones, was counted among the administration sup¬ 
porters, as he generally voted for administration measures during 
the session. The hold-over administration senators were: E. E. 
Burns, George W. Wolff, George F. Miller, and Oliver G. Munson. 

There were eleven hold-over senators who were members of the 
Wisconsin republican league, as follows: Henry Hagemeister, J. 
H. Green, Julius E. Roehr, 0. W. Mosher, William O’Neil, T. A. 
Willy, E. D. Morse, John M. Whitehead, Frank McDonough, D. E. 
Riordan, and John C. Gaveney. Senators A. L. Kreutzer and 
Barney A. Eaton, both members of the league, were re-elected. Otis 
W. Johnson, C. C. Rogers, and Z. P. Beach were the newly elected 
conservative senators. William C. North and Samuel W. Randolph 
were conservative democrats and as a rule acted with the stalwarts 
during the session. 

The lineup, therefore, was conservative republicans 16, con¬ 
servative democrats 2; La Follette republicans 14, La Follette demo¬ 
crat 1; conservatives 18, La Follette supporters 15. 

The primary election bill, a substitute for No. 9 7A, was reported 
to the assembly by the committee on privileges and elections on 
Feb. 2, and it was passed four days later, Feb. 6, bv a vote of 70 to 
19. Of the 19 votes against the bill 8 were cast by republicans and 
11 by democrats. 

While this may not be record time, still there are few delibera¬ 
tive bodies that can show better speed on so important a measure, 
one intended to change the entire system of making nominations of 
candidates. Introduced on Monday; passed to engrossment and 
third reading on Wednesday; reported correct by both committees 
on Thursday and put on the calendar for Friday; passed on Friday 
and messaged to the senate the following Monday. 

In the^ meantime, it must be remembered that a number of 
amendments were proposed and considered—at least they were re- 


> 


66 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


jected. Assemblyman Ray, speaker of the assembly at the previous 
session, wanted more time to look into the measure and moved to 
make it a special order for Tuesday of the following week, Feb. 11, 
but his suggestion w T as voted down. When the hour came to take up 
the bill on Wednesday, Mr. Wallrich made another attempt to 
postpone action, but his motion was defeated, 62 to 36. Mr. Wall- 
rich, by the way, had been counted among the administration men. 

Then came the amendments. Mr. Ray proposed to strike out 
the words “state officers’’ and “United States senators,” but his 
motion was defeated, 74 to 21. 

Mr. Thompson moved to amend by setting the date of holding 
the primary in April, instead of September. Motion defeated by 
viva voce vote. 

Mr. Crowley offered an amendment in the form of a new section 
providing that the voters might write in the names of their choice 
for United States senators on a blank line provided for that pur¬ 
pose. Rejected, 65 to 30. 

Mr. Coffland then offered an amendment in the form of a new 
section as a substitute for section 22, which amendment provided 
for the election at primaries of delegates to attend county con¬ 
ventions at which delegates to state conventions were to be chosen. 
The state conventions were to adopt platforms for the state and 
congressional districts and to elect party committees. This motion 
was lost, no roll call being demanded. 

Mr. Karel then'offered an amendment making it unlawful for 
appointive state, county or city officers to circulate nomination 
papers and providing a penalty for violation of this provision. The 
prohibition did not apply to officers or employes who circulated 
petitions in their own behalf. This amendment was lost by a vote 
of 61 to 34. 

Mr. Haderer moved to refer the bill back to the committee on 
privileges and elections, which motion was defeated by a vote of 
68 to 28. 

Mr. Haderer moved an amendment in the form of a substitute 
bill; his motion was lost, no roll call being ordered. 

Franklin Johnson’s motion to refer the bill to the committee on 
judiciary was voted down. 

Mr. Osborn then moved to amend by providing that state officers 
be exempted from the operations of the bill, which amendment was 
lost by a vote of 82 to 12. 

The previous question was then moved by Mr. Barker and car¬ 
ried by a unanimous vote, and the bill was ordered to engrossment 
and third reading bv a vote of 76 to 20. 

The following day the bill was reported correct by the two 
committees, and on February 6, four days after its introduction by 
the committee, it passed the assembly by a vote of 70 to 19. 

Tt is clear from an examination of the vote on the several amend- 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


67 


ments that there were a number of members of the lower house 
among those wh© voted for its final passage who believed the meas¬ 
ure could be improved, but the administration organization stood 
solidly against any and all changes. It was determined to “put it 
up to the senate’ 7 in its original form, and there were votes enough 
in the house to follow out the administration program to the letter. 
The appeal to the voters against the action of the senate in 1901 had 
succeeded because all the radicals in the state had been united in 
a common cause. It was believed that, should the senate repeat its 
action of two years before, another appeal could be made with equal 
success, and success at the polls was the thing most to be desired. 

On February 9 the primary bill was messaged to the senate from 
the assembly and referred to the committee on privileges and elec¬ 
tions, consisting of Senators Morse, Miller, Martin, Munson, and 
Whitehead, three administration men and two stalwarts. This com¬ 
mittee held the measure for consideration from that date until 
March 26, on which day they reported it with certain amendments 
relating to the publication of notices to be made by county clerks, 
the percentage of voters required on nomination papers, and the 
notice to be given by the secretary of state to county clerks. 

After the report of the committee had been read, Senator White- 
head moved that, all rules interfering with the immediate consid¬ 
eration of the bill be suspended, which motion prevailed. Senator 
Hatton alone voting in the negative. After several fruitless at¬ 
tempts had been made by Senators Miller and Martin to secure an 
adjournment until evening, amendments by individual senators 
were presented.- 

Senator Kreutzer offered an amendment in the form of a substi¬ 
tute—the senate journal does not disclose its nature—which was 
rejected, only four senators, Hatton, Kreutzer, North, and Ran¬ 
dolph, voting for it. 

Senator Rogers submitted an amendment striking out the mem¬ 
bers of the state legislature from the list of officers to be nominated 
at the primary, "which was rejected by the entire vote of the senate 
with the single exception of Senator Rogers himself. 

Senator Gavenev then offered an amendment in the form of a 
referendum section which was different from any that previously 
had been suggested. He proposed to submit to the voters at the 
election to be held in November, 1904, the question of applying the 
primary plan to the nomination of candidates for elective state 
officers, congressmen and members of the state legislature, the bill 
to go into force immediately so far as it related to elective city 
and county officers. The call for the yeas and nays on this amend¬ 
ment resulted in the first “lineup” vote on the primary question of 
the two factions in the senate, as follows: 

Yeas—Senator Beach, Eaton, Gaveney, Green, Hagemeister, 


68 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


Johnson, Kreutzer, McDonough, Morse, Mosher, North, O’Neil, 
Randolph, Riordan, Roehr, Rogers, Whitehead, and Willy—18. 

Nays—Senators Bird, Burns, Hatton, Hudnall, Martin, McGilli- 
vray, Merton, Miller, Munson, Reukema, Sarau, Stout, Wipperman, 
Wolff, and Wylie—15. 

Senator Whitehead then moved that “all rules interfering with 
the concurrence of No. 97A at this time be suspended,” which 
motion was carried with but three senators voting in the negative. 
They were Senators Hatton, McGillivray, and Munson. The bill 
was then read a third time and concurred in as amended, the vote 
being the same as the one by which Senator Gaveney’s amendment 
was adopted. 

March 27 the bill was messaged to the assembly which, on 
March 31, concurred in all the senate amendments with the excep¬ 
tion of the referendum section proposed by Senator Gaveney. It 
was returned to the senate on April 1 by message and that body 
voted to adhere to the amendment by a vote of 19 to 14, Senator 
Bird acting with the stalwarts when the question was put. The 
bill was then messaged back to the assembly and that body, on mo¬ 
tion of Mr. Ra}q refused to recede from its position and asked for 
a conference. Senators Morse, Whitehead, and Beach were ap¬ 
pointed to represent the senate and Messrs. Andrew, Frear, and Le 
Roy were appointed as conferees for the lower house. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


69 


CHAPTER XV. 

Why the Bill Was Passed. 

The action of the state senate, while it received the support of 
the entire stalwart membership of that body, was not in accord with 
the judgment or wishes of the more conservative members. There 
was a disposition on the part of several senators, of whom Senator 
Whitehead was the most positive and uncompromising in his 
opinion, to defeat the measure, and they had the votes to do it if that 
plan had been decided upon. But other counsel prevailed. 

It is a well known fact that the stalwart faction lacked leader¬ 
ship during the years 1901, 1902, and 1903. There was no “boss.” 
The wing of the republican party represented as defending the 
caucus and convention system in the interests of the “bosses” could 
not produce one solitary boss in its hour of need to lead it in a 
campaign. It was not because there were no men of ability in the 
stalwart ranks. In point of fact it was charged at times that there 
were no privates in the opposition army—they were all major 
generals. There was an abundance of material for leadership, but 
no leader. 

At the time the primary bill was passed in 1903 the lines be¬ 
tween the factions had been sharply drawn and the two United 
States senators and certain members of congress had found them¬ 
selves, without any overt acts of hostility on their part, forced 
into the anti-administration camp. Among the latter was Rep¬ 
resentative Babcock, probably one of the best equipped political 
leaders in the nation and one of the men who had aided Gov. 
La Follette in his campaign for the nomination in 1900. Mr. 
Babcock had then served nearly ten years as chairman of the 
republican congressional committee and he had won golden 
opinions from the members of congress whose interests he had 
protected in several campaigns. But he made no attempt to organ¬ 
ize the opposition to Gov. La Follette largely because of his respect 
for the amenities which require that the senators be first consulted 
when the interests of the party in the state become a subject of dis¬ 
cussion and controversy. 

Other republicans ’were restrained by the same considerations 
from volunteering to take upon themselves the management of the 
campaign, which explains why the stalwart forces were, in fact, an 
army of volunteers without officers or organization during those 
eventful years. There was complaint from members of the legis¬ 
lature of the failure of the national leaders to line up an effective 
organization against the encroachments of the governor. When the 
legislature met there were almost as many opinions as to the proper 
course to pursue as there were stalwarts in the two houses and it 
was discovered that it would be impossible to agree upon any line 


70 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


of action unless the United States senators and members of con¬ 
gress openly allied themselves with the members of the party at 
home with whom they were known to be in sympathy. 

In this emergency a messenger was sent to Washington for the 
purpose of explaining the situation to the two senators and the 
members of the lower house, particularly Congressman Babcock, 
and get them to agree upon some line of action. Senator Quarles 
out of deference to Senator Spooner’s seniority, declined to move 
without the express sanction of the latter, but he signified his will¬ 
ingness to do his full duty in the work of redeeming the party in 
the state from political disruption. Mr. Babcock took the same 
position, arguing that it was the senior senator’s place to either 
lead the party himself or consent to the selection of some other 
person to assume the responsibilities as well as the labors of lead¬ 
ership. There was conference after conference, Senator Spooner’s 
well known distaste for practical politics, together with his dis¬ 
inclination, to authorize another, however able and willing to lead, 
to speak and act for him, making it impossible for days to come 
to an understanding. 

The final outcome of the conference however, was that Mr. 
Babcock was delegated to come to Wisconsin and assume the lead¬ 
ership of the stalwart, or conservative republicans. One of the 
conditions laid down by Senator Spooner before the arrangements 
were completed was that the primary election bill with a referen¬ 
dum clause was to be passed by the state senate. It was agreed 
that the two United States senators and the members of congress 
who were not in accord with Gov. La Follette were to take an 
active part in the next campaign for the purpose of defeating the 
bill when it was presented to the people for-their indorsement by 
popular vote. 

Having succeeded in the mission that took him to Washington, 
the messenger returned to Wisconsin and reported. He was fol¬ 
lowed in a few days by Mr. Babcock who established himself at 
Madison and undertook to advise the stalwarts in the legislature as 
to the course they should pursue. He assured the stalwart senators 
that they could count on the co-operation of Senators Spooner and 
Quarles, as well as certain congressmen of whom he was one, and 
that an earnest effort would be made to perfect a real organization, 
one that could go into a campaign with a prospect of winning. 

With this understanding the stalwart members of the state sen¬ 
ate agreed to carry out the plan proposed by Mr. Babcock, as 
originally outlined by Senator Spooner, although Senator White- 
head and others were not convinced of its wisdom. Mr. Babcock 
assumed the responsibilities of the position assigned to him by 
the other leaders and it was by his direction that the primary bill, 
objectionable as it was to the stalwart state senators, was passed 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


<-71 


practically in its original form with the referendum section at¬ 
tached. 

The conference of the two houses on the primary bill did not 
accomplish anything. The members agreed to disagree as the final 
outcome of several meetings, and the assembly solved the problem 
by changing or amending the Gaveney referendum amendment in 
a manner to meet the approval of the senate. The change made 
was merely to submit the entire question to a vote of the people at 
the general election in November, 1904, instead of submitting the 
question of applying the law to the nomination of state and legisla¬ 
tive candidates only. This action was taken on May 19, and the 
senate concurred in the amendment on May 20 by a vote of 26 to 3, 
Senators Hatton and two democrats, Merton and North voting 
against it. Senators Hagemeister, Kreutzer, Randolph, and Wolff 
were absent. 

But, between the time the conference committees were ap¬ 
pointed and the passage of the bill by the two houses, a new record 
was made up. It should be remembered that about every con¬ 
ceivable amendment to the measure had been offered and rejected 
by the assembly at the time the bill was considered under special 
order. Also other bills, introduced by individual members who be¬ 
lieved it had been given them to see the proper solution of the 
primary election problem, had been killed from time to time by 
both houses. In this way the entire ground had been covered, ap¬ 
parently. 

But the assembly conferees came to the meeting armed with six 
distinct propositions, all embodying amendments that already had 
been acted on by one or both houses of the legislature. They in¬ 
sisted on having their propositions considered, but the senate con¬ 
ferees replied that all of these propositions had* been presented 
to and voted down already, and were not, therefore, proper sub¬ 
jects of consideration by the conference committees. An adjourn¬ 
ment was then taken and at a latter meeting a seventh proposition 
was made by the assembly conferees, which was rejected by the 
senate conferees for the same reason that they refused to consider 
the first six offers of amendment. 

Meanwhile, the minutes of the meetings were carefully kept and 
the investigator of the subject will find in the assembly journal 
for that year, pages 902 to 911, the entire story as it was reported 
by the committee of that house together with the seven proposi¬ 
tions in detail. The record there made up is as complete as could 
be desired by the most technical writer of campaign literature— 
with one exception. The stalwarts had learned their lesson in 
1901 and they were not caught without a record of their own. 
They had made all the propositions now presented by the admin¬ 
istration committeemen and had written them into the official 
record. Their propositions had been rejected. They now replied 


72 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


that these amendments had been considered and rejected by the 
legislature; they could not be presented again at the same session. 
At least, the conference committee could not consider amendments 
that have been disposed of finally. 

Whatever the judgment of the student of events may be at this 
time of the action of the two houses on the primary bill in 1903, 
it can not be said that the stalwarts made any tactical blunders in 
their management of the measure either in the two houses or in 
conference. They did not aid in the manufacture of material to 
be used against them in the campaign the following year. The 
question in that campaign was put “up to the people” themselves 
and the literature circulated during the campaign by the admin¬ 
istration organization did not, because it could not, truthfully 
charge the stalwarts with repudiating platform pledges in that 
respect at least. They had given the voters an opportunity to speak 
for themselves at the ballot box. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


73 


CHAPTER XVI. 

Arbitrary Usurpation. 

As has been explained, it was the intention of the stalwarts to 
make the primary election measure the main issue in the campaign 
of 1904. It was believed that, by concentrating on this issue, by con¬ 
ducting a vigorous stumping campaign led by Senators Spooner 
and Quarles, and by circulating literature explaining clearly the 
character of the proposed law, many who had been indifferent to the 
movement and others who had supported it could be convinced 
of its unwisdom and induced to cast their votes against the ap¬ 
proval of the bill. 

But these well laid plans came to naught. The factional feel¬ 
ing, the personal animosities—the poison in the political blood of 
the state that had been growing more deadly in its malignity dur¬ 
ing the four years of strife—reached a climax in the spring of that 
year. 

Wisconsin had been sowing the wind of malice; it now reaped 
the whirlwind of hate. It had been planting suspicion and dis¬ 
trust; it now came to the harvesting of corrupt practices such as 
had never even been dreamed of. It had been scattering abroad 
the seeds of revolution; it was only prevented from garnering a 
crop of violence and bloodshed by the moderation of a large ele¬ 
ment of its people who had not yet lost their ability to reason and 
their respect for the law. 

The republican state convention met at Madison on May 18, 
1904, on a call issued by a majority of the members of the state 
central committee and against the protest of a minority of that 
body. At this convention was made the crucial test of the ability 
of citizens of Wisconsin with red blood in their veins to avoid the 
natural consequences of acts calculated to provoke a breach of the 
peace. The history of that convention is written in hundreds of 
pages of sworn testimony, official records, duly authenticated min¬ 
utes of convention proceedings, and signed reports of committees. 
It is unnecessary to go into detail here, but a brief narrative outline 
of the events that brought about the subordination of the primary 
election issue to more important interests is required to make the 
history of that issue clear and definite in the minds of the reader. 

It had been customary in years when presidential elections oc¬ 
curred to hold two state conventions, one in the spring for the 
election of delegates and alternates to the national convention and 
the nomination of an electoral ticket; the other in the summer to 
nominate a state ticket and adopt a state platform. In this way 
state issues were kept out of the convention that was called upon 
to deal only with matters of national interest. 

For the first time in the history of the state these two functions 
were combined and one convention was called to perform both 



74 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


offices. This was done in violation of party precedent and against 
the protest of a minority of the state central committee and many 
republican newspapers. There was no public demand for the 
change; there was no public sentiment in its favor; no interests of 
the people were to be served; no reform could be accomplished 
by and no valid excuse offered for the action of the majority of the 
committee in thus arbitrarily and without authority overriding 
the customs and established practices of the party. 

When the convention met it was found that out of 1,065 dele¬ 
gates entitled to seats in the convention, 955 held credentials that 
were on their face valid and sufficient to entitle them to seats in 
that body and to participate in the work of organizing the conven¬ 
tion. Of that number 496 1-6 were anti-La Follette and. 458 5-6 
were La Follette delegates. 

These men were entitled to organize the convention and pass 
finally upon the validity of the claims of the delegates whose seats 
had been jeopardized by the careless officers who had bungled the 
work of making out credentials. There were thirty-nine La Fol¬ 
lette delegates present with defective credentials and eleven anti- 
La Follette delegates were in the same predicament. In each of these 
cases the irregularity was not important or fatal and the admission 
of all of these delegates would have raised the respective votes of 
the two factions to 507 1-6 stalwart, 497 5-6 La Follette, with the 
stalwarts still in the majority. 

But the state central committee majority, made up of sixteen 
rabid La Follette factionists, eight of whom were officeholders, de¬ 
termined to organize the convention themselves. They threw out 
the eleven stalwart votes on a trumped up contest and seated the 
thirty-nine La Follette delegates. They then, on contests that were 
clearly fradulent and unfair, unseated forty-four delegates that 
held regular credentials, five of whom had been elected by direct 
vote in the Second ward of Milwaukee, and seated in their places 
delegates who held no credentials of any character. In only one 
case was a pretense of fairness attempted. This was the case of 
^t. Cioix county, where a contest—the only one—had been brought 
by the stalwarts, and in which case the committee reported in favor 
of dividing the ^ote equally between the legally elected stalwart 
delegates and the illegal La Follette claimants. In this wav the roll 
of the convention was made up. No opportunity was given the con¬ 
vention to pass upon the qualifications of its own members, which 
it had a right to do. The majority of the committee usurped 
that right and exercised it arbitrarily. 

But it was deemed necessary to adopt radical measures to carry 
out this high handed proceeding—and it was done. A sergeant at 
arms was appointed who would do as he was told. What his in¬ 
structions were does not appear as a matter of record, but his acts 
are eloquent on that point. He requested the chief of police of 
Madison and the sheriff of Dane county to appoint a large number 



The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


75 


of special officers to guard the convention and enforce order while 
the outrage was being perpetrated. The police chief, H. C v Baker, 
refused to comply with the request, but the sheriff was convinced 
that a riot was imminent and he commissioned a large number of 
deputy sheriffs to serve for this special occasion. These, together 
with the assistants to the sergeant at arms, guarded the convention. 
Among these deputies and assistants there were athletic partisans 
of the governor, state game wardens, oil and factory inspectors, 
football players from the university, at least one professional 
athlete, and men with police records. There are affidavits on file 
to substantiate these statements if any evidence is needed to con¬ 
vince readers of their truth. 

The gymnasium building on the university grounds was pre¬ 
pared for the occasion with great care. All doors leading to that 
part of the building to be occupied by delegates were closed, locked, 
and braced in a substantial manner, with one single exception— 
a small door at the side of the building.' A wire partition was 
erected between the delegates’ portion of the hall and that occupied 
by the public. A “runway” was constructed of lumber leading 
from a point eighteen feet from the outside of the single narrow 
entrance to a point eleven and one-half feet inside the building. 
Along this runway, or passage, was posted a double line of muscular 
deputies and assistants numbering, according to one affidavit, at 
least forty. 

Through this double line of guards the delegates were required 
to pass, and the passage was not a simple matter. Every person 
entering the runway was forcibly seized and his badge examined. 
He was roughly treated, manhandled by men appointed for that 
purpose, and in some cases he was forced to submit to language 
that was calculated to raise his temperature to fever heat. In this 
way the administration supporters testified to their respect for the 
representatives of republican voters who had been regularly elected 
to attend and participate in a republican state convention. 

It should be remembered that the badges worn by the delegates 
and examined over and over again as the victims worked their way 
laboriously through the double line of guards had been furnished 
by the state central committee. The regularly accredited dele¬ 
gates, sent there by republican voters to represent them, but whom 
the majority of the committee had determined to unseat, were not 
given badges and could not enter the building. They were not 
even admitted to that part of the hall assigned to the public as the 
tickets to that section also were carefully vised and passed out 
only to favored citizens. It was to prevent the entrance of the un¬ 
seated delegates that the 100 or more men were employed as a 
force sufficient to enable the conspirators to successfully carry out 
their plans. 

Subsequently a weak attempt was made to explain that an out 


76 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


break on the part of the stalwarts was feared, but there was no 
warrant for such a belief. It had been publicly and freely talked 
for days that, if the majority was refused its right to organize the 
convention, there would be a “walk out” and a second convention. 
Badges had been printed on which the word “Hiker” appeared in 
prominent type. All the world knows that the word “hike” means 
to “walk.” Furthermore, on the evening before the convention was 
called to order at the gymnasium a meeting of the stalwart dele¬ 
gates was held at the Fuller opera house. At that meeting M. G. 
Jeffris of Janesville, one of the stalwart leaders, in an address out¬ 
lining the program agreed upon, said: 

“I know you feel intensely upon this subject, but remember that 
when this body of delegates goes to the state convention we go as 
gentlemen. Remember that the eyes of the people of the state are 
upon yo.u. Every man is called upon to suppress his feelings re¬ 
gardless of the indignities that may be heaped upon him and con¬ 
duct himself as a gentleman so that when this matter is over 
everybody will be compelled to say that, while we insisted on our 
rights and shall insist to the end, yet at no time did we do any 
act that was not the act of a gentleman. We will go to that hall; 
we will insist that the delegates who have been duly elected and 
accredited to that convention be admitted to the floor of the hall. 
We will insist upon our rights, but we will have them in such a 
manner that the people at large will say that we acted as gentle¬ 
men.” 

They went as gentlemen and they were gentlemen to the end. 
Hot one act of a stalwart; not one word even under the most humil¬ 
iating personal insults while being pawed over at the door by ad¬ 
ministration bullies or, after entering the hall, where they were 
browbeaten and insulted by administration factionists, could be ob¬ 
jected to as undignified or ungentlemanly. They presented their 
demands for a hearing in the strongest possible manner, appeal¬ 
ing without hope for justice and fair play, and when they were 
voted down, or declared out of order—as was usually the case— 
they withdrew and organized a legal convention with a majority of 
the legally elected delegates in attendance. Whenever a vote w r as 
taken on a point raised, or a motion made by a stalwart delegate, 
the delegates illegally seated by the state central committee voted, 
as well as the assistants to the sergeant at arms and the deputy 
sheriffs when the roll w r as not called. 

As an illustration of incidents occuring prior to the withdrawal 
of the anti-La Follette delegates, two brief excerpts from affidavits 
subsequently filed will suffice. One is from a sworn statement by - 
W. F. Loomis, a La Follette delegate who did not withdraw but re¬ 
mained in the gymnasium convention until the end because he had 
been instructed by his constituents to vote for La Follette. Mr. 
Loomis later made a voluntary sworn statement in which he said, 
among other things: 



The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


77 


“That on getting there (to the delegate entrance of the gym¬ 
nasium building) he found that all doors of admission to that part 
of said hall, alloted to delegates were barred except a side door, 
which was guarded by at least forty persons, some of whom wore 
badges upon which were printed ‘Deputy Sheriff’; others wore 
badges reading ‘Assistant Sergeant at Arms,’ and the remainder 
were dressed in policemen’s uniforms. A double file of such guards 
was arranged extending some distance outside and inside of said 
doorway, so that in order to enter said convention hall it was neces¬ 
sary for the delegates to pass single file between said two lines 
of guards. Each member of said guard, in turn, grasped and took 
by the arm or clothing in a rude and insulting manner, ostensibly 
for the purpose of examining said badge to see that it entitled the 
person wearing it to admission to said convention hall. That this 
deponent saw one man who wore his badge on his vest instead of on 
his coat and he was refused admission until he put said badge on 
his coat. 

“Deponent further says that all of said guards were strangers 
to him, that they were all large muscular men, of heavy build, and 
evidently selected because of their physical strength. That on the 
inside of said convention hall, scattered around the sides of the 
building and in the aisles, were a great many persons of a similar 
description, wearing badges upon which was printed ‘Assistant Ser¬ 
geant at Arms.’ Not less than sixty of said guards and assistant 
sergeant at arms were in that part of said hall allotted to delegates. 
That the deponent noticed said guards applauded La Follette’s 
speakers and delegates and saw them repeatedly hiss, hoot and 
groan at anti-La Follette delegates speaking in said convention.’’ 

Spencer Haven., an anti-La Follette delegate from St. Croix 
county who was admitted to the convention with one-half vote, 
swore to the following facts: 

“That on the inside of the convention hall, and scattered along 
the aisles and around the sides of the building allotted to delegates, 
were a great many persons of a similar description, wearing badges 
on which was printed ‘Assistant Sergeant at Arms.’ That during 
the proceedings of the convention upon votes taken viva voce they 
voted invariably with the La Follette faction, and in so voting, 
added their vociferous voices to the vote of said faction. That there 
was as many as a dozen of such persons so labeled ‘Assistant Ser¬ 
geant at Arms’ in the immediate vicinity of that part of the con¬ 
vention where this deponent was sitting, and their conduct was 
such in voting upon questions that came before the convention as to 
attract the attention of deponent and other delegates sitting near 
him, and finally some one of said delegates, in the presence and 
hearing of deponent, asked these persons, so labeled ‘Assistant Ser¬ 
geant at Arms,’ whether they were delegates of the convention, 
and they replied ‘Yes,’ and that they were voting, and also re¬ 
marked that they could vote louder than deponent and the other 
.delegates sitting near him could.” 

Before the convention was organized M. B. Rosenberry, a mem¬ 
ber of the minority of the state central committee, made a request 
of the chairman, Gen. Bryant, that he, Rosenberry, be recognized 
by the temporary chairman of the convention for the purpose of 
presenting a minority report of the state central committee, signed 
by six members. He was told to make arrangements with T. L. 
Lenroot who was to be temporary chairman, which he did, and was 


78 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


given a promise that he would be recognized immediately after 
the close of the temporary chairman’s address. Mr. Rosenberry 
took a seat on the platform eight or ten feet to the left of, and be¬ 
hind the stand at which Mr. Lenroot stood when he addressed the 
convention. As he sat down he was surrounded three persons, 
strangers to him, each a noteworthy example of physical prowess 
and each wearing a badge that indicated that he was an assistant to 
the sergeant at arms. These three men refused to allow Mr. Rosen¬ 
berry to move or change his position at any time, but forcibly held 
him in his seat until Mr. Lenroot had finished his address. At the 
appointed time Mr. Rosenberry arose to his feet, with his guards 
still clustered about him, although he had explained to them who 
he was and that he had the consent of Gen. Bryant and Mr. Len¬ 
root to his presence. In spite of this explanation, and although 
Mr. Rosenberry had several times requested his guards to cease in¬ 
terfering with his freedom, they persisted in their surveillance over 
his acts. On this point Mr. Rosenberry said in his affidavit: 

“It was impossible for him to move without personal encounter; 
that by reason of the fact that it was a time of great excitement and 
high tension, this affiant preferred to bear the personal humiliation 
incident to such insulting conduct on the part of said persons rather 
than precipitate a personal struggle * * * and this affiant is 

informed and verily believes that said persons were engaged in such 
insulting conduct by the direction of their superiors, and that their 
action was part of a preconcerted plan to deny affiant, along with 
other anti-La Follette delegates, the common courtesies and rights 
of delegates in a republican convention.” 

It may be added that, when Mr. Rosenberry had completed the 
reading of his report and attempted to move that it be substituted 
for the majority report, he was seized by his guards and forced into 
his chair. 

The affidavits which establish beyond controversy the details of 
this most high handed proceeding fill a large volume and they are all 
of the same tenor. They tell of personal insults, exasperating 
taunts, and actual physical violence, all calculated, if not deliber¬ 
ately designed, to lead to physical resistance and bloodshed. In 
point of fact, there are few states where such proceedings would 
not have brought about an outbreak of hostilities and a resort to 
mob law. 

But the stalwart majority restrained themselves—to their ever¬ 
lasting credit be it said—and submitted with dignified composure 
to the repeated acts of injustice, and worse, that were inflicted upon 
them by the minority supported by physical force, ostentatiously 
displayed. The addresses made to the convention by M. B. Rosen¬ 
berry, M. G. Jeffris, and E. R, Hicks were models of convention 
oratory, appealing as they did to the sense of justice that ought to 
have actuated the administration faction. Their appeals were met 
with taunts by the minority speakers, and they withdrew from the 
convention. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


79 


CHAPTER XVII. 

The Conflicting Decisions. 

At the convention held in the Fuller Opera house the same 
evening a committee on credentials was appointed to which was de¬ 
livered the record of the credentials secured by the minority of the 
state central committee. The copies of the credentials were ex¬ 
amined by the committee and all cases where contests had been 
filed were presented to and acted upon by the convention itself. 
When this work was completed and a vote was taken it was found 
there was present in the stalwart convention, and voting, 567 duly 
elected republican delegates, or a majority of sixty-nine votes of 
the entire number legally qualified to sit in a republican convention. 

This majority then proceeded to nominate a state ticket at the 
head of which they placed the Hon. S. A. Cook as the republican 
candidate for governor. Senators J. C. Spooner and J. V. Quarles, 
Representative J. W. Babcock, and the Hon. Emil Baensch w f ere 
elected delegates to the republican national convention. A plat¬ 
form was adopted and a state central committee chosen. In order 
that, so far as was practicable, the split in the party might be con¬ 
fined to the state ticket and prevented from affecting the candidates 
on the national ticket, arrangements were made to name as presi¬ 
dential electors the men chosen at the gymnasium convention. 

As a part of the platform adopted by the convention held at 
the Fuller opera house—which platform was not printed in the 
blue book the following year among other platforms of all parties— 
the following plank is found: 

“Seventh—The last legislature enacted and has submitted to the 
people to be voted upon at the general election a proposed primary 
election law. This law proposes a radical change in the nominat¬ 
ing procedure of all parties, and affects every elector in the exercise 
of one of his functions, and we approve of the action of the republi¬ 
can senate in declining to put into immediate operation by a ma¬ 
jority vote of one party such a law, without first giving an oppor¬ 
tunity to all the voters of the state, each voter upon his own re¬ 
sponsibility and conscience to pass upon it at the polls. It has 
passed the platform stage. If it shall not be the will of the people 
to do away with all conventions in the future, we favor the enact¬ 
ment of such legislation as shall provide specifically for the elec¬ 
tion and accrediting of delegates, and the legal effect which shall be 
given to credentials duly executed, to the end that it shall be im¬ 
possible for any power but the convention itself to overrule the 
prima facie title of delegates and turn preliminarily a majority into 
a minority.” 

The convention that continued in session at the gymnasium 
building also adopted a platform in which was placed a primary 
election plank wdiich reads as follows: 

“We indorse and approve the administration of Gov. Robert M. 
La Follette as conspicuously able, honest and economical. Through 


80 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


his fearless, conscientious and statesmanlike advocacy of a faithful 
compliance with party promises and against the most malicious and 
corrupt opposition, a primary elector, employer, employe, will, in 
accordance with just principles of government, without coercion or 
intimidation, be able to express his true conviction at the polls. 
We regret that the opponents of this measure, in violation of the 
party’s most sacred promises and three times repeated in its plat¬ 
form, have thus far been able to postpone the operation of the law r , 
and we denounce such action on their part as a breach of good faith 
to their constituents and as treason to the republican party. We 
heartily commend the primary election law proposed by the last 
legislature to all fair minded citizens, regardless of party affiliation, 
for their approval at the polls. This measure should stand above 
partisan consideration as going to the ground work of popular gov¬ 
ernment. The campaign leading up to this convention must illus¬ 
trate to all citizens of Wisconsin the difficulty of securing a true expres¬ 
sion of the popular will under the present caucus and convention system, 
when private interests conflict with public welfare 

When the contesting delegation elected by the gymnasium con¬ 
vention, R. M. La Follette, Isaac Stephenson, J. H. Stout, and W. 
D. Connor, appeared before the national committee in Chicago, a 
full and fair hearing was given them. Six hours were consumed 
in listening to the arguments of the attorneys for the two sets 
of delegates; certified copies of all the credentials were at hand; 
the minutes of the two conventions and affidavits of all parties who 
had anything of importance to say bearing on the case were exam¬ 
ined, questions were asked and answered, and the committee decided 
unanimously in favor of the legality of the anti-La Follette con¬ 
vention and recommended that the delegates elected at that con¬ 
vention be seated. 

The matter was then referred to the committee on credentials 
appointed by the national committee and the evidence was all laid 
before that body. The attorney for the La Follette delegates, how¬ 
ever, did not make an argument, contenting himself with filing a 
statement to the effect that he believed the committee was preju¬ 
diced and that his clients would not receive a fair hearing. The 
committee spent a part of one afternoon, the evening, tlie night, 
and a part of the next forenoon in examining the evidence in the 
case. The matter was thoroughly and impartially examined into 
and the decision of this committee was the same as that of the na¬ 
tional committee. The vote to recommend that the stalwart dele¬ 
gates be seated was unanimous. 

The republican national convention finally passed upon the 
merits of the contest and, by a practically unanimous vote, seated 
John C. Spooner, Joseph V. Quarles, Joseph W. Babcock, and 
Emil Baensch as the regularly elected and duly qualified delegates 
from Wisconsin. 

Having secured a decision from the national committee, the 
committee on credentials of the national convention, and the re¬ 
publican national convention itself, there still remained the neces- 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


81 


sity ol appealing to the Supreme court. Walter L. Houser, an un¬ 
compromising partisan of the governor, was secretary of state and 
it was his duty to make up the ballots to be used at the election 
in November. All who were acquainted with the secretary did not 
stop to question what his course would be. They knew he would 
ignore the decision of the national convention and place the names 
ol the candidates nominated at the gymnasium convention on the 
ticket as the regular republican nominees. Certain formal steps 
were taken to induce him to accept the republican national conven¬ 
tion as the highest, authority in the republican party and the Su¬ 
preme court was asked to order him to comply with the request. 

The decision of the court, handed down on Oct. 5, one month 
before the election was a peculiar one. This decision was written 
by Justice Marshall, a dissenting opinion being filed by Chief Jus¬ 
tice Cassoday, who held that the court had jurisdiction and that 
the nominees of the Fuller opera house convention were the regular 
nominees of the republican party. A majority of the court, how¬ 
ever, held, that, under the statutes, the republican state central 
committee was the only body that had jurisdiction to determine 
the regularity of its own proceedings or the proceedings of a re¬ 
publican convention. In other words, it was the supreme author¬ 
ity in the state ; it could, if it decided to do so, ignore the decision 
of the national convention. It had a right to usurp authority that 
belonged to the convention itself, and, should its action be im¬ 
peached, it could hear, try, and determine its own case. 

This is not to be taken as a criticism of the Supreme court’s 
decision. It is merely intended as a comment on the remarkable 
statute construed by the court when it rendered its decision. The 
court is entitled to and must always be accorded the most pro¬ 
found respect. It is permitted, however, to condemn a law that 
furnishes a statutory warrant for an outrage on justice and po¬ 
litical morals. A law that will rob the majority of any party of 
the fruits of victory by permitting a minority to govern, is not a 
good law. The result of the election disposed of that law, as no 
delegates are elected now, and the offending statute may be per¬ 
mitted to rest in peace. 

It is not surprising that, in the midst of a controversy like 
the one described the primary election law was, in a measure, lost 
sight of. Senators Spooner and Quarles, M. G. Jeffris, J. G. 
Monahan, and other speakers referred to it in their addresses 
while stumping the state, but there were other matters of more re¬ 
cent birth that called for explanation at length. Only brief and 
occasional mention was made of the proposed law in the literature 
circulated by the stalwart central committee. The campaign was 
in fact, one of personalities, as is always the case in factional 
party, as well as in family quarrels. It thus came about that an 
issue which had been fought over and discussed at length for three 


82 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


years was practically smothered at the time it came up for final 
approval or defeat at the polls. 

The result was that the primary election measure was indorsed 
by the voters at the-polls by a majority of 50,507. The total vote 
cast on this question was 210,891, while the total vote cast for all 
candidates for governor that year was 449,570, of which Gov. La 
Follette received 227,253, and George W. Peck, the democratic can¬ 
didate, 176,301. The total vote on the primary election question 
was less than one-half the vote for governor; it was less by 16,362 
than the vote for La Follette; it fell 11,416 short of the combined 
vote against La Follette. The vote in favor of the measure was 
96,554 less than the La Follette vote, and the vote against it fell 
short 142,125 of the combined vote against La Follette. 

Following the decision of the Supreme court, the stalwarts lost 
all semblance of an organization and their forces were divided as a 
natural consequence. Large numbers voted the democratic ticket. 
Others, who could not overcome their republican training, voted for 
the La Follette ticket on the score of regularity as laid down by 
the court. The original stalwart candidate, S. A. Cook, had with¬ 
drawn from the race and Maj. Edward Scofield, former governor, 
had been placed on the ticket, but no pretense was made of sup¬ 
porting that ticket. Maj. Scofield himself asked republicans to vote 
for Peck. A bare 12,136 old line republicans could not bring them¬ 
selves to the point of voting for a democrat or for La Follette and 
they voted for Scofield against his protest. Thus the governor was 
re-elected for a second time and the primary election law was in¬ 
dorsed by the people. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


83 


CHAPTER XVIII. 

t 

Questions That Must be Answered. 

The questions to be answered by the people of Wisconsin at this 
time are: Is the primary election law worth what it has cost the 
state in money and bad blood ? Has it fulfilled any of the promises 
of its advocates ? Has it dethroned the political boss and destroyed 
the political machine? Have the political morals of the state 
been elevated by it? Has it improved the personnel of the office 
holding class? Has the public service been benefited by its opera¬ 
tions? Has it made corrupt practices in the nomination of candi¬ 
dates more difficult? Has this law, which was recommended as 
“going to the very groundwork of popular government” by giving 
the voter a direct voice in the nomination of candidates, resulted 
in any benefit, direct or indirect, to the voter himself? Has it 
brought the government “closer to the people?” Are the people’s 
liberties more securely guarded? Are the people better governed 
since that law went into operation ? 

If these questions, or any of them, can truthfully be answered 
in the affirmative, let no man lay impious hands upon that law. 
If a negative answer must be given, the statute should be changed 
to correct the mistakes of its authors. This is all there fis to the 
matter. No partisan or personal interests, no factional considera¬ 
tions, must be permitted to postpone the work of framing the 
needed amendments, nor should the remodeling of the law be taken 
up in a spirit of controversy. There has been enough of con¬ 
troversy; enough of crimination and recrimination; enough of fac¬ 
tional strife. The time is come when cool, calm reason should hold 
sway and the work of real reform must be undertaken with the sole 
aim of adjusting the law regulating the nomination of candidates 
to the needs of the state as indicated by the experiences of the last 
twenty years. 

The primary election law was not the cause of the factional 
war that has made the last decade a memorable one in the state. 
It was merely an incident, one of several, that made the controversy 
peculiarly exasperating by reason of the bitterness with which the 
issues were supported and opposed. But, under its influence and 
by reason of the opportunities it offers for personal politics, the 
work of party disintegration is going forward at an alarming pace 
and there is urgent need of some means by which order may be 
brought out of the prevailing political chaos and government by 
parties—real representative government—restored to the people of 
the state. 

Government by parties and government of parties by the mem¬ 
bers of the parties themselves are essential to the perpetuity of 
our institutions. Government by individuals, however able, in- 


84 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


evitably spells despotism. Party responsibility on the one hand 
and a wise distribution of powers between the co-ordinate branches 
of the government on the other are the means by which the neces¬ 
sary checks and balances are provided for the protection of our 
rights and as a guaranty of our liberties. 

The overthrow of parties through the ascendency of the indi¬ 
vidual destroys party responsibility. Party organization and party 
leaders disappear with party principles, and individuals take their 
places with organized personal followings bearing the motto, “Any¬ 
thing to win,” as their most sacred principle. The discussion of 
real principles is lost in the public exchange of bitter personalities. 
Even factional strife, deplorable as snch a condition must be, is 
soon displaced by something worse—personal contests for power. 
This is not a theory; it is a plain statement of fact based upon 
recent experiences in this state. 

Wisconsin has reached a stage in the development of personal 
politics where parties are a negligible quantity, and the primary 
election law has contributed to this result by putting a premium on 
office seeking through direct personal effort, unflagging energy, self 
advertising and a liberal expenditure of money. This condition is 
illustrated by the city of Milwaukee. In 1898, after the municipal 
election, there were filed under the corrupt practices act 175 ex¬ 
pense statements by candidates, amounting in the aggregate to 
$8,280.93. Of this amount $2,669.49 was contributed to ward clubs 
and committees by the candidates. Following the municipal elec¬ 
tion in 1908, ten years later, the expense statements filed, 274 in 
number, amounted to $50,479.49, but there were no contributions 
to ward clubs because there were no ward clubs. 

Where are the Wisconsin political clubs of former years? 
They have disappeared with the political parties they were or¬ 
ganized to support and assist. There is not at present writing in 
the city of Milwaukee one effective club organized to work for the 
success of a political party. There are personal organizations, or 
clubs, designed to advance the political fortunes of some favorite 
leaders and made up for the most part of followers who hope to 
profit by the success of those leaders, but there are no party ward 
clubs composed of business and professional men whose sole aim is 
to work for the triumph of party principles in which they believe. 

Under the old system of making party nominations^ in conven¬ 
tions composed of representatives of the voters of the party, the 
party could and was held to a strict accountability for the acts' of its 
officers. It therefore selected its candidates with some degree of 
caution. It is true that large sums of money were expended in 
some of the campaigns in electing, or trying to elect, party tickets. 
This money was expended by # party committees and the fund was 
derived from contributions by members of the party. The nomi¬ 
nees of the party usually contributed to this fund according to 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


85 


their ability, but the largest part of the fund came from members 
of the party who were not candidates for office. 

When an officer was elected in this way, the party paying the 
expense, he was accountable to his party for his official acts and his 
party was responsible to the people. The contributions to the 
campaign funds were not as a rule made with a great amount of 
publicity. In point of fact, it was seldom that the candidates knew 
to whom the party was indebted for contributions to its campaign 
fund. The hands of state, county, or legislative officers were not 
tied by financial obligations of any kind. No demands were ever 
made upon officers in this state for favors based upon campaign con¬ 
tributions to parties. 

Under the primary system all the money contributed to a pri¬ 
mary campaign must go directly to the individual seeking the of¬ 
fice or his agent, and, while there may be no contract in definite 
terms between candidate and contributor with respect to a quid 
pro quo, should that contributor’s interests become involved at any 
time in such a manner as to require official action on the part of 
the candidate who has been favored, it is not difficult to guess what 
would be the result. However honest he may be, the official is 
likely to stretch a point in order to favor a friend who has placed 
him under obligations. He will not care to be classed as an ingrate. 

Much has been said in the past about the influence of large 
corporations in politics. The most effective way in which those 
great industrial and commercial bodies can wield an influence in 
political circles is by the use of money. The easiest way to use 
money in politics is to place the individual officeholder under direct 
obligation to the contributor. The primary election law offers an 
ideal opportunity for the use of money in this way. Should the 
big corporations feel so disposed they have an opening now by 
which they can enter the political field in Wisconsin and rope, 
throw, hog tie, and brand a large number of public officers by a 
judicious use of corporate funds. As it stands, the law not only 
permits, but forces candidates to spend large sums of money in 
primary campaigns. As the emoluments of public office are not as 
a rule so liberal as to warrant the expenditure by a candidate of 
a king’s ransom in the effort to secure an office, there is an opening 
for the generous contributor, be he personally interested or merely 
a representative of a corporation, to step in and offer to carry a 
part of the burden. 


86 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XIX. 

The Cost of a Campaign. 

It cost candidates in the city of Milwaukee $50,479.49 to run 
for office in 1908 with the primary election law in operation. It 
cost but $8,280.93 in 1898 when the primary law was not in opera¬ 
tion. The difference, $42,198.56, it will be conceded, is a heavy 
tax to place upon candidates for office. It is true there were more 
candidates running for office in 1908 than in 1898, but that is 
merely another illustration of the operations of the new statute. 
So far as the operations of the corrupt practices act are concerned 
it may be said that when that law was new it was respected and 
obeyed by a large percentage of the candidates for office. The only 
material change made in the law since 1897 has been to require the 
district attorney to demand statements from candidates who have 
failed to comply with its provisions after a certain period. 

As an indication of the effect of the primary election law on 
the expenses of candidates for office the following tables compiled 
from the records in the offices of the city clerk of Milwaukee, the 
county clerk of Milwaukee county, and the secretary of state, will 
serve. The year 1904 was the last convention year in which can¬ 
didates were nominated under the old Milwaukee primary law in 
both city and county, and 1906 was the first primary election year. 
It should be explained that one important statement, that of Mayor 
Rose, has been lost from the files for the year 1904, although there 
is little doubt that such a statement was rendered at the time. 

CITY OF MILWAUKEE. 

Administrative 

All Candidates and Executive All City 


for Mayor. Officers. Officers. 

1898 .$ 1,574.60 $ 4,180.35 $ 8,280.93 

1900 . 3,081.50 5,754.90 13,547.95 

1902 . 1,966.64 7,463.91 17,820.61 

1904 . 627.25 3,203.00 9,628.80 

1906 . 14,735.21 20,628.89 27,915.49 

1908 . 25,500.13 30,090.38 50,479.49 


The same abnormal increase in the expenses of candidates is 
shown in the statements filed with the county clerk, from which 
the following table is made up: 

ALL COUNTY OFFICERS. 


1898—103 statements ...$14,887.91 

1900— 67 statements . . . 24,952.58 

1902— 53 statements ... 27 792.14 

1904— 57 statements .. 13M56.35 

1906— 95 statements ... .•. 69 K 79 99 

1908— 87 statements .... .!!!’. 1!! 46308!8'7 


The excess of the amount expended in 1906 over that of 1908 
is explained by two statements, those of Francis McGovern and F. 














The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


87 


X. Boden, candidates for district attorney. Mr. McGovern ren¬ 
dered an account amounting to $16,699,85, and Mr. Boden’s state¬ 
ment placed his expenses at $15,252.58. In 1904, Mr. McGovern, 
running for the same office, spent $1,086.90. Deducting these two 
statements from the total, there still remains $37,920.45, as the ex¬ 
penses of the other candidates in the first primary year. 

One of the most important offices of the county is that of sheriff, 
and it is one that is much sought after. In the last three cam¬ 
paigns the candidates for that office expended the following 
amounts in their attempts to secure the nomination and election: 
1904, the last convention year, $3,075.00; 1906, the first primary 
year, $6,715.58; 1908, $9,011,86. 

That the increase in the amount expended is not always due 
to a multiplication of candidates is shown by the abstract of 
statements of candidates for mayor filed with the city clerk which 
follows. David S. Rose, for instance, has been a candidate for that 
office at each election during the entire ten year period, and he has 
been the successful candidate each time except in 1906, when he 
was defeated by Sherman M. Becker. Mayor Rose’s statement for 
1904, the last convention year, can not be found, although he says 
he filed it according to law, but the fact that this veteran candidate, 
one who is acknowledged to have a large personal following in the. 
city, found it necessary to increase his expenses under the primary 
law is clearly shown and it is significant. Another significant fact 
is that so many candidates have entered the race in 1906 and 1908 
with ample funds and a willingness to spend liberally. Here is a 
list of the mayoralty candidates for ten years with the amounts 
expended by each: 

FOR MAYOR. 


1898—David S. Rose (D).$ 933.25 

William Geuder (R) . 578.25 

H. J. Baumgaertner (R). 63.10 

H. H. Steinman (D), nothing. 


$ 1,574.60 

1900—David S. Rose (D).$ 1,877.55 

H. J. Baumgaertner (R) . 1,197.35 

Frederic Heath (S. D.). 6.50 


$ 3,081.40 

1902—David S. Rose (D).$ 1,291.65 

Charles Anson (R) . 675.00 


$ 1,966.65 

1904—David S. Rose (D)—no statement. 

Guy D. Goff (R) .$ 600.00 

A. A. Clas, by petition. 27.25 


Victor L. Berger (S. D.), nothing 


, $ 627.25 





















88 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


1900—David S. Rose (D). 

W. G. Bruce (D) . 

S. M. Becker (R). 

W. J. Fiebrantz (R). 

J. Vierthaler (S. L.). 

W. A. Arnold (S. D.)—nothing 


$ 2,027.10 
1,662.03 
9,207.91 
1,784.62 
53.55 


$14,735.21 


1908—David S. Rose (D).$ 5,223.89 

W. H. Graebner (D). 2,488.23 

Louis A. Dahlman (R). 7,900.69 

T. J. Pringle (R) . 6,141.02 

John T. Kelly (R). 3,205.80 

G. A. Zilgitt (D). 535.00 

Emil Seidel (S. D.). 5.50 

Thomas Gardner (Pro.)—nothing. 


$25,500.13 

Turning now to the expense statements filed with the secretary, 
of state since the corrupt practices act went into effect in 1898, the 
same climb of expenses upward is noticed. No account is taken of 
the few candidates for the legislature who are required by law to file 
their statements at Madison, the examination being confined to 
state officers, members of congress, and United States senators. 



For 

Lieut. 

Sec. 

State 

• 

Governor. 

Governor. 

of State. 

Treas. 

1898 . 

$ 5,821.04 

$ 1,216.75 

$ 2,327.72 

$ 1,472.80 

1900 . 

6.780.93 

795.00 

1,166.04 

704.49 

1902 . 

7,184.61 

1,073.53 

3,738.28 

2,402.75 

1904 . 

8,061.74 

1,258.60 

4.106.20 

3,575.50 

1906 . 

17,407.25 

15,031.46 

3,317.07 

8,792.35 

1908 . 

10,854.70 

4,006.42 

907.35 

1,659.70 



Attorney 

Insurance 

State 



General. 

Com. 

Ticket. 

1898 . 


$ 815.50 

$ 169.87 

$11,823.71 

1900 . 


648.26 

1.176.53 

11,271.07 

1902 . 


1,181.15 

2,026.74 

17,607.06 

1904 . 


1,015.85 

4,583.78 

22,601.67 

1906 . 


4,801.58 

1.838.33 

51,188.04 

1908 . 


1,023.92 

4,561.09 

23,013.19 

CONGRESSIONAL 

TICKET. 

UNITED STATES SENATE. 

1898 . 


1899 _ 


. . $ 6,760.60 

1900 . 

. . . 19,834.88 

1903—nothing. 


1902 . 

. . . 24,276.20 

1905 .... 


262.87 

1904 . 

. . . 23.538.46 

1907 .... 


6 187 89 

1906 . 

. .. 45,327.78 

1909 .... 


. . 192.977.59 

1908 . 

. . . 50,417.79 




The decrease in 

the cost to candidates 

for state offices in the 


campaign of 1908 when compared with 1906 is explained by the 
fact that the state officers were all in the field for renomination 
and re-election, and, as it has been customary in this state to recog¬ 
nize the right to a second term, there was little opposition to the 
old officers with the single exception of the candidate for insurance 
commissioner. Still, the expenses that year were more than double 
the amount reported in 1902, 









































The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


89 


. CHAPTER XX. 

Repudiated by its Friends. 

« 

Three times since it was enacted into law and put in force in 
1904 by approval of the voters at the polls, has the primary stat¬ 
ute been repudiated by the men who were responsible for its adop¬ 
tion as the law of Wisconsin. In 1906 Francis McGovern was a 
candidate for renomination for the office of district attorney of 
Milwaukee county, and he was defeated by Frank X. Boden by a 
vote of 13,605 to 12,906. This was the result of a direct primary 
where the voters used the ordinary ballot, the nearest approach to 
an Australian ballot known in this state, and signified their choice 
of candidates under a system designed to give “the people the abso¬ 
lute power to say who their candidates for office should be—of in¬ 
suring to each man an equal voice in the selection of candidates.” 

The day following the primary Mr. McGovern, who was one of 
the original primary law advocates and a leader in the fight for 
its enactment, was quoted by a newspaper as saying that he was 
defeated fairly, or words to that effect. Later, he changed his mind 
and filed a newspaper indictment against the citizens who voted 
for Mr. Boden, charging that they were all grafters or friends of 
grafter". He was subsequently elected by a vote of 15,510, an in¬ 
crease over his primary vote of 2,604, while Mr. Boden polled but 
13,783, an increase of but 178 above his primary vote. It is a 
significant- fact that Mr. Thiel, the social democratic candidate for 
district attorney, ran 2,213 votes behind the highest vote polled for 
a candidate on his ticket. But that was an election matter and 
ought not to appear in the account against the primary law ex¬ 
periment. 

Again, in 1908, H. L. Ekern, former speaker of the assembly, 
another leader in the campaign for the enactment of the primary 
law, was a candidate for renomination in Trempealeau county, and 
he was opposed and defeated by H. L. Twesme by a vote of 2,157 
to 2,013. Nothing occurred at this election that might not be ex¬ 
pected at any Wisconsin primary. The total vote of the two re¬ 
publican candidates was 4,170. In 1902 the total vote for assembly- 
man in that county, democratic and republican, was 2,623; in 1904 
it was 4,510 of which 1,201 were cast for the democratic candidate, 
leaving 3,309 as the largest republican vote ever cast for assembly 
in that county previous to 1908; in 1906 the total vote of both 
parties was 2,345. These figures indicate the extent to which 
democrats participated in republican primaries in 1908. 

' As in the case of Mr. McGovern two years before, Mr. Ekern 
refused to abide by the decision of the primary and came out as an 
independent candidate by petition. He was defeated at the elec- 



90 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


tion in November., being less fortunate than the first primary 
election bolter. 

Mr. Ekern’s cause was supported in the campaign for the elec¬ 
tion by a majority of the persistent La Foilette men. The word 
“persistent” is used in this connection to distinguish the men who 
have continued to be loyal to the senator since the numerous cracks 
and splits in the so-called “halfbreed” faction appeared, breaking 
it up into warring tribes that have nothing in common but their 
dislike of the stalwarts. Senator La Foilette went into Trempeal¬ 
eau county and delivered public addresses in support of Mr. Ekern, 
thereby giving his personal approval to the bolters and their leader. 
On the other hand, Gov. James 0. Davidson took the stump for 
Mr. Twesme, arguing that consistency demanded of all men who 
had supported the primary election movement a loyal support of 
the candidates nominated by the party at the primaries now held 
under the provisions of the law they had caused to be enacted. 

The third instance of repudiation of the primary election law r by 
the men who were instrumental in forcing the law upon the peo¬ 
ple of the state w*as one that attracted some attention even beyond 
the borders of the state. Senator Isaac Stephenson, nominated at 
the primary held in September, 1908, over S. A. Cook, Francis 
McGovern, and W. H. Hatton, appeared before the legislature for 
election as the regularly nominated republican candidate. But the 
cordial sentiments of mutual esteem that formerly had bound 
Senators La Foilette and Stephenson together in the closest bonds 
of interest and purpose had changed. The followers of the senior 
senator refused to abide by the decision of the primary and de¬ 
manded an investigation into the amount of money expended by the 
junior senator in securing the nomination. They also wanted to 
know who got the money. Mr. Stephenson was re-elected after a 
time. It has been said that the investigators are still dissatisfied 
with results and are determined to pile up still more testimony 
indicative of the blessings that are inseparable from the operations 
of this most perfect law—this law that puts up the party nomina¬ 
tion at auction to be knocked down to the highest bidder. 

Fair minded, clean handed citizens will not file objections to an 
investigation designed to expose corruption and punish offenders 
against the corrupt practices act, but they might have expected— 
and many of them did—just such a campaign as the one waged in 
1908 for the seat in the United States senate. The expense state¬ 
ments on file in the office of the secretary of state show that the 
contest for that nomination cost the candidates $192,977.59. It 
is not reasonable to suppose these statements are accurate to a 
cent. In point of fact, supplemental statements were subse¬ 
quently filed that do not appear in this total. By adding to the 
sworn statements of the candidates for the United States senate 
the $90,788.36 expended in Milwaukee city and county the same 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


91 


year, the $23,013.19 spent by candidates for state offices, and the 
$50,417.79 spent by candidates for congress the tidy'sum of $363,- 
196.93 is obtained. It would be interesting to know what the 
candidates in the seventy counties not mentioned expended and 
what the total for the entire state amounted to. 

The story of the contest for the election in the legislature last 
winter that resulted in the return of Mr. Stephenson to the United 
States senate is w r ritten in the volumes of testimony taken before 
the investigation committees. It is a story of lavish expenditure 
of money by all four candidates in perfecting state organiza¬ 
tions and making a state canvass for votes. But this result was 
anticipated and pointed out in advance by the opponents of the pri¬ 
mary election law. “The certain effect of the law in operation/ 7 
about which Gov. La Follette was so eloquent in his message to the 
legislature in 1901, embraced, among other things, the expenditure 
of large sums of money by candidates seeking nominations. 

The real significance of that investigation is found in the fact 
that the La Follette contingent, or branch, of the half breed faction 
repudiated their own law when they refused to support Senator 
Stephenson. Senator Stephenson spent money liberally in securing 
the nomination, and in doing this he merely followed his uniform 
practice. He spent money liberally in the interests of Senator La 
Follette when that gentleman was building up his faction in this 
state and it was to be expected that he would be no less liberal when 
he was himself a candidate for office. The other candidates were 
as free in the use of money as Mr. Stephenson when “their ability 
to pay 77 is considered. Mr. McGovern, who says he is a poor man 
comparatively, having spent more than $16,000 two years before 
in running for the office of district attorney of Milwaukee county, 
found it necessary to dispose of more than $11,000 in the sen¬ 
atorial campaign. When men of Mr. McGovern’s moderate means 
can find approximately $28,000 in two years to invest in office¬ 
seeking, it is not surprising that Mr. Stephenson should take from 
his many millions a paltry $107,000 to be used in the same man¬ 
ner. 

Without any disposition to defend Mr. Stephenson’s large ex¬ 
penditures of money, it may be well to consider some of the neces¬ 
sities in the case of a man w r ho seeks a United States senatorship 
under the conditions under which Mr. Stephenson was a candidate. 
He announced his candidacy less than seven weeks before the pri¬ 
mary. There was no party organization that he could avail him¬ 
self of. The fact is the contest was within the so-called republican 
party of Wisconsin. There are seventy-one counties in this state 
and in order to feel reasonably certain of success, it must have 
been necessary to build an organization in each county. Every man 
who has had anything to do with political work knows that organ¬ 
izations of that character can not be created without money. The 


92 


Political Reform jn Wisconsin. 


necessary advertising for meetings, hall rent, messenger service, and 
many other expenditures, all perfectly proper, amount to large 
sums. It may be argued that such an organization is unnecessary 
or objectionable, and that people know whom to vote for without 
being dragged into political massmeetings. It must, however, be 
clear to every one that some effort is required. The voter must 
at least know who the candidate is. There are in round numbers 
700,000 voters in the state of Wisconsin. The least and most in¬ 
offensive thing that a candidate for United States senator or state 
office can do is to write each voter a letter. That alone will cost 
$25,000. If Mr. Stephenson had addressed five letters to each 
voter in the state, which certainly would not be unreasonable, his 
expenses would have exceeded the amount which he has reported, 
ft may be argued that his efforts should have been directed to re¬ 
publicans only. How is a man without a party list to know who is 
a republican or who is a democrat ? The very best he can do, if he 
wishes to reach the voters by letter, is to take the entire polling list 
and address his communications to all voters regardless of their po¬ 
litical persuasion. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


93 


CHAPTEE XXI. 

Wisconsin Has Lost Prestige. 

There were many who believed that, by giving the people the 
right to vote directly for their candidates at a primary election 
the personnel of the officeholding class would be improved—that 
the state would secure better officers, men of more ability and in¬ 
fluence. This was urged as one of the reasons why the bill should 
pass and become a law. 

The results do not bear out this prediction. In 1903 Wiscon¬ 
sin held a high place in the councils of the nation. In both houses 
of congress Wisconsin men were found on the most important com¬ 
mittees and no less than six chairmanships were held by members 
of the lower house from this state. Eepresentative Cooper was 
chairman of the house committee on insular affairs; Babcock was 
chairman of the District of Columbia committee; Jenkins was 
chairman of the judiciary committee; Brown was chairman of the 
committee on mines and mining; Davidson of the committee on 
railways and canals; Minor was chairman of the committee on 
expenditures of the interior department. 

In the upper house, Senator Spooner was chairman of the com¬ 
mittee on rules and a member of the committee on Cuban rela¬ 
tions, the committee on finance, and the committees on foreign re¬ 
lations and public health and quarantine. Senator Quarles was 
chairman of the census committee and a member of the committees 
on agriculture and fisheries, commerce, military affairs, public 
buildings and grounds, and the special committee on transportation 
and sale of meat products. 

The fact that Wisconsin, one of the smaller states, standing 
thirteenth in population and ninth in manufactures, should be ac¬ 
corded six chairmanships in the lower house was a source of pride 
to Wisconsin republicans. With but eleven members in the house 
and six holding chairmanships of committees it was felt that the 
standing of the state at the national capital was being well cared 
for. And the committees headed by Wisconsin representatives were 
not unimportant. The judiciary, insular affairs, and District of 
Columbia committees were three of the most sought after posi¬ 
tions in the house. The chairman of the judiciary committee, John 
J. Jenkins, stood next to the speaker of the house in power and 
prestige. The three remaining committee chairmanships held by 
Wisconsin men, railways and canals, mines and mining, and ex¬ 
penditures of the interior department, were none of them insignif¬ 
icant. 

In the senate the committee on rules, then held by Senator 
Spooner, is the most important committee assignment that can be 
given to a member of either house, and all of the other assignments 


94 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


held by Senator Spooner were of a high grade. Senator Quarles 
was the junior senator but his committee appointments were emi¬ 
nently satisfactory considering the time he had spent in the upper 
house. 

Today Wisconsin holds but one chairmanship in the house. 
Representative James H. Davidson is chairman of the committee 
on railways and canals. The successor to Representative Jenkins, 
the late head of the judiciary committee, is Irvine L. Lenroot, who 
holds fourth place on the committee on ventilation and acoustics, 
a booby committee to which Wisconsin men have not heretofore 
been assigned with one or two exceptions. Mr. Cooper has lost his 
place on the insular affairs committee. Mr. Babcock’s successor, 
Arthur W. Kopp, is fourth on the committee on expenditures in 
the state department, sixth on the committee on elections No. 1, 
and tenth on committee on pensions. Representative Esch, an old 
member, continues to hold fairly good places on the committee on 
interstate and foreign commerce and the committee on expenditures 
on public buildings, and Davidson is on the committee on rivers 
and harbors in addition to holding the solitary chairmanship al¬ 
ready mentioned. 

In the senate the senior senator, La Follette, holds practically 
the same committee appointments held by the junior senator in 
1903. The committee assignments of the senators in 1903 and 
1909 may be compared as follows: 

1903—Senator Spooner, senior senator, chairman committee on 
rules, member committees on Cuban relations, finance, foreign relations, 
public health and national quarantine (special). 

1908—Senator La Follette, senior senator, chairman committee on 
census, and member committees on civil service and retrenchment, cor¬ 
porations organized in the District of Columbia, expenditures in the 
department of state, immigration, Indian affairs, and pensions. 

1903—Senator Quarles, junior senator, chairman committee on cen¬ 
sus, and member committees on agriculture and forestry, commerce, mili¬ 
tary affairs, public buildings and grounds, transportation and sale of 
meat products (special). 

1908—Senator Stephenson, junior senator, chairman of the commit¬ 
tee on expenditures in the department of agriculture, and member of 
the committees on claims, enrolled bills, Indian depredations, industrial 
expositions, Pacific railroads, and public buildings and grounds. 

In the lower house the comparison is still more unfavorable to 
the state. While the present senators hold more committee as¬ 
signments than did their predecessors, their labors will not be of 
a character to overtax their strength, as meetings of most of the 
committees are rarely held. In the house the number of com¬ 
mittee assignments as well as the character of the committees to 
which appointments are made, indicate a loss of prestige. Fol¬ 
lowing are the assignments in 1903 and 1908, by districts: 

First district, 1903—H. A. Cooper, chairman of the committee on 
insular affairs; 1908—H. A. Cooper, member committee on elections No. 
3. and of the committee on foreign affairs. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


95 


Second district, 1903—II. C. Adams, member of committees on agri¬ 
culture and expenditures in interior department; 1908—John M. Nelson, 
member of committees on elections No. 3, Pacific railroads, and indus¬ 
trial arts and expositions. 

1 hird district, 1903—Joseph W. Babcock, chairman of committee on 
District of Columbia and member of committee on ways and means; 
1908 Arthur W. Ivopp, member of committee on expenses in state 
department, committee on elections No. 1, and on pensions. 

Fourth district, '1903—Theobald Otjen, member of committees on 
foreign affairs, war claims, and Pacific railroads; 1908—William J. 
Cary, member committee on District of Columbia and on expenditures 
in navy department. 

Fifth district, 1903—William H. Stafford, member committee on post- 
offices and postroads; 1908—William H. Stafford, member of committee 
on interstate and foreign commerce and committee on postoffices and 
postroads. 

Sixth district, 1903—Charles H. Weisse (democrat), member of 
committees on private land claims and manufactures; 1908—Charles H. 
Weisse, member of committee on private land claims and invalid pensions. 

Seventh district, 1903—John J. Esch, member of committee on mili¬ 
tary affairs and interstate and foreign commerce; 1908—John J. Esch. 
member of committees on interstate and foreign commerce and expendi¬ 
tures on public buildings. 

Eighth district, 1903—James H. Davidson, chairman committee on 
railways and canals and member committee on rivers and harbors; 
1908—James H. Davidson, chairman committee on railways and canals 
and member of committee on rivers and harbors. 

Ninth district, 1903—E. S. Minor, chairman committee on expendi¬ 
tures in interior department, and member of committees on merchant 
marine and fisheries and public buildings and grounds; 1908—Gustav 
Ivuestermann, member of committees on liquor traffic, patents, and im¬ 
migration and naturalization. 

Tenth district, 1903—Webster E. Brown, chairman committee on 
mines and mining, and member of committee on Indian affairs; 1908— 
Elmer A. Morse, member of committees on war claims, manufactures, 
and private land claims. 

Eleventh district, 1903—John J. Jenkins, chairman judiciary com¬ 
mittee; 1908—Irvine L. Lenroot, member of committees on patents and 
on ventilation and acoustics. 

► 

This record tells the story of Wisconsin’s fall from a leading 
position at the national capital to one of little influence and less 
honor. There has been an attempt at an explanation of this un¬ 
fortunate development. It is said that “Uncle Joe” Cannon “has it 
in” for the Wisconsin members because they chose to act independ¬ 
ently, and refused to do his bidding. 

Such an explanation is sheer nonsense. The Wisconsin mem¬ 
bers were ignored because they have ceased to represent a party. 
There is no political party in Wisconsin today. Each member rep¬ 
resents an independent effort at the primary and the polls, and he 
goes to Washington as an individual who has been elected on a 
platform made by himself and presented to his constituents on the 
stump or in the form of private campaign literature. The names 
“republican” and “democrat” have no real meaning in Wisconsin 
today. Even the members of congress make their own platforms 


96 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


and stand on them, there being no conventions of party representa¬ 
tives to perform that duty. Each member of congress is a party by 
himself, and he runs for office on his own individual merits and the 
issues he may feel disposed to present to the people and talk about. 

Is it any wonder that, when these men arrive in Washington, 
they are not given the best places on the committees of the two 
houses? Were they republicans in a republican hou^e of repre¬ 
sentatives they could demand recognition and secure it, through 
party influence, against the opposition of the speaker. He would 
not dare to ignore ten republicans who came from a republican 
state, elected on the republican ticket, running on a republican 
platform. But he can well ignore ten individuals who made their 
own platforms, coming from a state where political parties have 
been abolished and candidates for office, instead of appealing to 
the voter on party principles, follow the line of least resistence and 
adopt the “anything to win” method of securing votes. 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


97 


CHAPTER XXII. 

The Primary Law a Failure. 

After four years of experiment with the Wisconsin primary 
election law it is not difficult to point out many weaknesses and in¬ 
adequacies that have become apparent in its operations. Even the 
original primary election advocates, those who were confident the 
law would prove to be an automatic cure all for political ills, now 
acknowledge that it must be amended. They still contend that the 
principle is sound; they merely propose to make certain changes 
in the statute in order to give the principle an opportunity to do 
its work. 

Many voters who supported it after a four years’ trial of the law 
are tired of it. They do not believe the principle is capable of suc¬ 
cessful application to the nomination of candidates for office. 
There are many citizens who will not express an opinion because 
they have been impressed with the belief that there is something 
sacred about the direct primary election plan, and they are fur¬ 
ther convinced that there is an overwhelming public sentiment be¬ 
hind it. But there are enough who openly and unequivocally 
condemn the law and the principle involved in it to indicate clearly 
what informed public sentiment in Wisconsin now is on this sub¬ 
ject. 

Objections to the law are based on its failures to perform the 
miracles its friends claimed for it and the positive disadvantages 
and grave evils that have developed through the attempt to apply 
the principle practically. In other words, it has failed signally 
to effect reforms promised and it has brought forth a brood of 
political and social abuses of the most serious character. Here are 
a few of the more serious criticisms of the law as it has been de¬ 
veloped in this state:. 

1. The personnel of the officeholding class has not been im¬ 
proved ; better, more capable, and cleaner men have not been elected 
to office; public officers are not more devoted to their duties; the 
civil service is not improved by the appointment of a better class 
of employes. 

2 . Public morals are not elevated by the change in the method 
of making nominations. Never before in the history of the state 
was so much money expended by candidates in campaigns as at 
present. Never before were there so many open charges of cor¬ 
ruption and the unlawful use of money. 

3. It has disorganized parties and built up personal political 
machines. 

4. The members of the state legislature are split up into fac¬ 
tions and there is no party responsibility for their acts, which has 




98 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


resulted in an endless amount of useless and some harmful legis¬ 
lation. 

5. The primary contests have engendered so much bitterness 
that each election brings about a new alignment of personal politi¬ 
cal machines. 

6. Nominations at the primaries no longer represent the will 
of the members of the parties making the nominations. The mem¬ 
bers of the minority party invariably vote in the primaries of the 
majority party. "Republican candidates with personal machines 
make trades with democrats and socialists for votes in republican 
primaries. Democratic leaders are hopeless, for they do not have 
even the consolation of being at the head of a party that stands 
for democratic principles, a respectable minority party. 

7. Poor men and men of moderate means can not become 
candidates for office under the primary election law when there 
are contests, except on two conditions. They must face ruin or 
accept money from others to defray their necessary expenses. If 
they accept financial aid they assume obligations no public servant 
should incur. 

8. The electors can not “vote directly for the men of their 
choice” at a primary election. They must vote for some man whose 
name appears on the primary ticket, and that ticket is made up of 
candidates who have circulated nomination papers or caused nomi¬ 
nation papers to be circulated. They may all be officeseekers and 
objectionable to 90 per cent of the voters, but the voter must sub¬ 
mit to make his choice from the self nominated primary candidates. 

9. Never in the history of the state have the enmities en¬ 
gendered bv political contests been so bitter as they are today. All 
pretense of the old good natured rivalry between parties has dis¬ 
appeared from the political arena. Charges of unlawful use of 
money, of a debauched public service, of actual bribery, of personal 
dishonesty and political trickery were common during the last 
session of the legislature. 

10. Few, if any, intelligent men who take an interest in 
politics can be found in the state who will not readily admit that 
the law is not satisfactory and needs amendment. Changes have 
been suggested at every session of the legislature since the law 
was enacted, but no real remedy has been found. 

11. While no attempt has been made to compute the entire 
cost of the law in operation to the taxpayers of the state, counties 
and cities, no one will for a moment dispute the truth of the state¬ 
ment that it has been enormous and that no compensating benefit 
has resulted. 

12. The law gives a decided advantage to the man in office. 
In the case of a United States senator or state officer where the 
candidate must appeal to the entire electorate, the man who is 
known to the people as the man in office is, has much advantage 


99 


The Evolution and 


Revolution of the Primary. 


over the newcomer. The well advertised candidate, although he is 
an inferior person, will get the nomination over a less advertised, 
but better equipped candidate. 

13. r I he placing of names of candidates on primary tickets 
by petition has developed a new industry in this state during pri¬ 
mary campaigns—the circulation of petitions for hire. The party 
clubs of former years have disappeared; in their places have ap¬ 
peared the mercenaries who secure names on petitions for a con¬ 
sideration. This is an exchange of patriotism for pelf. 

14. The abolition of all conventions, county, district and state, 
has deprived the voters of parties of the opportunity to get together, 
rub elbows and become acquainted. In conventions men from dif¬ 
ferent sections of the state met and exchanged views. They ex¬ 
plained the merits and abilities of the several candidates for office 
and they made “trades” to the advantage of the party ticket in most 
cases. The conventions were the schools of politics'to which many 
young men went for their education and they had an educative 
value^ All the advantages of this free intercourse and the exchange 
of ideas and information disappeared with the abolition of the 
convention. 

15. The provision for making platforms in conventions made 
up of candidates for office is a confessed failure. Platforms made 
in that way do not represent the principles of the party, but are 
mere “catch vote” affairs. Even the candidates who make them do 
not respect them, for they go out into the field with platforms of 
their own, in many cases carefully prepared, printed and distributed. 

16. The law has not dethroned the political boss. If we ever 
had a real boss in Wisconsin before the primary law we have merely 
changed bosses. Upon that feature of the question there is no 
chance for argument. The law complicates politics, and any law 
that does this widens the opportunity for manipulation and in¬ 
creases the activity of the boss. In fact, complicated politics require 
leadership and political genius. 

The shortest and most satisfactory solution of the primary elec¬ 
tion problem as it is now presented can be incorporated in three 
words: “Repeal the law.” But something is needed to take its place. 
For ten years before the primary election law now in force was pre¬ 
sented to the legislature in 1901 the Wisconsin lawmakers had been 
experimenting. They had developed through the evolutionary 
method what was known as the Milwaukee primary or caucus and 
convention law. There was no pretense on the part of any Mil¬ 
waukee citizens, whether actively interested in politics as candidates, 
public officers, or committeemen, or among private citizens whose 
sole interest was good government, that the Milwaukee primary law 
did not furnish adequate protection to the elector in the exercise 
of every right to participate in the management of the affairs of 


100 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


his party, if lie belonged to a party, and in the nomination of its 
candidates for office. 

Under the Milwaukee primary law the members of parties voted 
directly for the nomination of all candidates for local offices and 
for delegates to city, county, district, and state conventions. In 
other words, within the territory in which they were, or could be, 
acquainted with the characters and qualifications of candidates they 
nominated by a direct vote. When the territory embraced in a 
district was so large that there was a doubt of the ability of the 
voters to choose intelligently, they selected representatives in whom 
they had confidence to meet in party conventions and act for them. 
This was in accordance with the principles of representative gov¬ 
ernment, the only kind of government possible in a country like 
ours. 

Under the Milwaukee law, also, the candidates were placed on 
the primary ticket at preliminary meetings which were open to all 
members of the party and any name proposed as that of a fit man 
to become a candidate for office or for a place on a delegation would 
be received and placed on the primary ballot. In this way can¬ 
vassing for signatures to nomination papers was avoided and the 
expense incidental to such a canvass was made unnecessary. 

Under the Milwaukee law candidates for office‘who were to be 
nominated by a direct vote of the electors did not have large dis¬ 
tricts to canvass and it was not necessary for them to organize 
personal machines and hire mercenaries to aid them in their primary 
campaigns. They did not deem it necessary to fill columns of the 
newspapers and cover acres of billboard space with glaring adver¬ 
tisements of their virtues and qualifications for the offices they were 
industriously seeking. 

AThere a district was larger than a township or ward, candidates 
were required to lay their claims before representatives of the voters 
in a party convention. Members of other parties could not partici¬ 
pate in the business before the convention. It was a family matter 
conducted by members of the family of voters. Independent voters, 
dissatisfied members of the party, and members of other parties 
were given an opportunity to express their approval or disapproval 
of the nominations made and platforms adopted when the time 
canle to elect or defeat the candidates nominated, but the nomina¬ 
tions were made by the members of the parties and no others—a 
most wise provision. 

Under the Milwaukee law when candidates were nominated by 
party members there was order and system as well as party responsi¬ 
bility. Party committees and clubs aided in the election of party 
tickets. Whatever money was required to carry on the campaign 
was expended largely by party committees in the interests of the 
entire ticket. Political clubs were organized in the wards, made up 
of citizens who cherished no personal political ambition and whose 


The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


101 


sole aim was the promotion of party success and the triumph of 
party principles. They held meetings, discussed public questions, 
exchanged opinions, and devised measures for the advancement of 
the interests of the party in the local field. Young men who became 
members of these clubs and who attended party conventions as dele¬ 
gates, having won the confidence of their neighbors, were in this 
way given a liberal education in the principles of government. They 
gained experience, a knowledge of men, and a familiarity with pub¬ 
lic affairs that can be attained only by meeting and mixing with 
other men who are equally interested and patriotic. Their minds 
were broadened, their acquaintance multiplied, and their ability 
to become useful citizens increased by their political activities. Now 
that political clubs and conventions have been abolished in this 
state there is no place for the young business and professional man 
in politics except as an officeseeker or a mercenary attached to some 
personal political machine. 

While there were complaints under the old system that the best 
man was not always nominated and that, at times, parties were not 
always wisely governed, there was not one fault found with that 
system that has not been exaggerated beyond all reason in these days 
of political disorganization. 

In addition to repealing the primary election law and re-enact¬ 
ing the Milwaukee caucus and convention law of 1899, steps should 
be taken to provide for a limit to expenses that may be incurred 
by candidates seeking nominations. This may well be done when 
candidates are nominated by conventions made up of delegates rep¬ 
resenting large districts or territories. In the old days it frequently 
occurred that candidates were nominated who had not spent one 
cent to advance their own interests. John C. Spooner was nomi¬ 
nated three times for the United States senate and he did not spend 
money to secure either the nomination or election. Where candi¬ 
dates are nominated by a direct vote in a strict party caucus or 
primary—in what is known as a closed primary—as was done under 
the old Milwaukee caucus and convention law in the case of all 
local officers, the expenses may be limited to a reasonable amount. 

But, under the Wisconsin primary election law now in force 
there is an element of injustice in putting up an office at auction 
and then denying candidates the right to bid in the open. A candi¬ 
date for a state office must have a wide acquaintance, must be 
favorably known—or well known, in any event.—in order to stand a 
chance of success. If he be not well known in advance he must make 
himself known through a campaign of publicity. This can be ac¬ 
complished in but one way—he must spend money and spend it 
liberally. 

What right has a state to enact a law by which long, arduous, 
and expensive campaigns are made necessary if the candidate shall 
hope to win, and then provide a limit of expenses that makes such 


102 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


a campaign impossible, or at least impractical ? The state has no 
right to tempt its citizens to spend money and then brand as a cor¬ 
rupt practice the act it has itself invited. The state should be con¬ 
sistent. Having put its offices up at public auction it should abide 
by the consequences or adopt a new system. It has no right to say 
that only men of wide and intimate personal acquaintance in con¬ 
gressional districts may hope to be nominated for congress, denying 
to men of limited acquaintance in the district the right to make 
themselves and their ability known to the voters. 

In a convention such a man would have a fighting chance—or 
his friends in the convention from his home county would at -least 
be able to present to the delegates his claims and make them ac¬ 
quainted with his qualifications, if he be well qualified for the posi¬ 
tion. In the primary election he would not even have a chance to 
fight against another man who had sold horses or bought hogs all 
over the district and who could call a majority of the voters by their 
Christian names. What right has the state to make it necessary to 
spend money to win a nomination and then deny the candidate the 
privilege of spending money ? 

And yet a limit to such expenditures must be fixed. Here is a 
primary election paradox. To leave the law as it is merely puts a 
premium on corruption. To amend it would deprive worthy men 
of all opportunity of becoming candidates for office with a prospect 
of success unless they were widely known in advance. And there is 
still another reason why the amount of money that may be expended 
in seeking office should be limited. Only men of wealth can afford 
to seek, or accept, office solely for the honor attached to positions of 
trust and confidence. Men of moderate means invite ruin when 
they expend large sums to secure a public office. Many men have 
been utterly ruined by officeseeking and officeholding. If the cost 
of getting office be increased or maintained at its present figure in 
this state, corruption and graft will follow as a natural consequence. 
There is no escape from this conclusion. There is no call for the¬ 
ories, for eloquent generalities, for appeals to popular prejudice in 
this emergency. The use of cant phrases such as Special interests,” 
the “right of the people to a direct vote,” and “fundamentals of 
government” is all well enough in its place, as is also the use of the 
terms “progressive” and “reactionary” to distinguish those who 
favor or are opposed to the Wisconsin primary law as it is, but cant 
is not what is needed in this state at the present time. 

Wisconsin is confronted by a condition, clearly defined, unmis¬ 
takable in character, and demanding amendment at the earliest pos¬ 
sible moment. The columns of the newspaper press have been full 
of the details of this condition for months. Business and profes¬ 
sional men, politicians and private citizens, farmers, artisans and 
laboring men are all aware of the situation and wondering what is 
to become of the state. 



The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary. 


103 


There is but one wav to escape the evils that are threatening and 
that is to bring to.bear on the members of the legislature enough 
pressure to cause them to make the necessary changes in the method 
of nominating candidates. They will not do it without pressure. 
There is a popular superstition that the direct primary is a sacred 
institution. It has had a mighty conjure spell thrown about it. 
It is demonstrably a failure, but thousands are as afraid of it as 
they are of a haunted house or a cemetery at midnight. The mem¬ 
bers of the legislature will not touch it until they are forced to do 
so and the only power that can force them is ths voters. 

The law is bad. It should be changed or repealed. To do so 
will not be a step backward as some will claim, but a step forward, 
just as much so as it is to repeal any other bad law. There is noth¬ 
ing sacred about it. It is only a pretty theory that does not work 
out in practice. The friends of constitutional government should 
make the question an issue in every legislative district The fact 
that some politicians still cling to it as a parent does to a wayward 
child should not deter the movement for its repeal. Those who have 
brought themselves into political prominence by agitating it have 
been rewarded. In other words, they have been settled with. If 
they wish to continue in the public service they should come for¬ 
ward and aid the people in wiping out a colossal blunder. This is 
a splendid opportunity for them to demonstrate to the people that 
they have a higher regard for the public welfare than their own 
selfish interest. What the people should now do is to fix up their 
election laws in a way that will guarantee constitutional govern¬ 
ment and thereby perpetuate our republican institutions. 


PART TWO. 


TAXATION REFORM IN WISCONSIN. 


CHAPTER I. 

Need of Reform Recognized. 

The history of taxation legislation during the first fifty years 
of Wisconsin’s experience as a state is one of constant effort to patch, 
amend, and stretch the original taxation system, adopted by the 
founders of the state, to fit new conditions constantly arising. When 
the state was first organized and admitted into the union the cost ol 
administering the public business was comparatively insignificant, 
and the task of apportioning the expenses of administration among 
the taxpayers was not a difficult one. A general property tax, cov¬ 
ering, as it did, real and personal property, was sufficient for the 
needs of the state, and, as both real and personal property were for 
the most part tangible, the work of placing a Value upon all property 
was one about which there could be no serious controversy. 

But that condition did not continue long. The last half of the 
nineteenth century was a period of transition from the old to the 
new. Our grandfathers lived the simple life; they transacted their 
business in the simplest possible manner; they had neither great 
wealth nor extensive fields of operation; their plan of taxation was 
as simple as their private business, and it answered their purposes. 
Their successors changed all that. They built railroads, telegraph, 
telephone, and electric car lines. They organized great corporations 
doing business in every state in the union and in foreign lands. They 
borrowed millions of capital and invested it in industrial pursuits. 
They changed the entire financial, commercial and industrial sys¬ 
tems. Incidentally, they amassed great wealth, a large proportion 
of which was of a character that made tax evasion easy. In point 
of fact this class of property termed “intangible” by the economists, 
could only be assessed when it was declared by the owners them¬ 
selves, as there was no way in which the assessing officers could dis¬ 
cover and value it. 

As the evolution of the business world progressed the efforts to 
adjust the taxation system to the new conditions became more per¬ 
sistent and earnest. Tax reform was not a political issue at any 
time during the fifty years that closed the last century, nor has it 
been a real political issue since. There have been differences of 
opinion, it is true, concerning specific measures designed to remedy 

104 




Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


105 


existing inequalities s of tax burdens, but there has never been a 
political party, a faction of a party, or any considerable number of 
citizens who were opposed to any measure that was demonstrably 
a reform or an improvement of the taxation system. 

During the last decade there has been considerable newspaper 
space devoted to the subject of taxation and political speeches made 
in this state have bristled with charges of conspiracy to evade taxes, 
but there has been no real issue at any time. The work of tax re¬ 
form, or the improvement of the taxation system, began years ago, 
before there was any talk of a “reform administration” of state 
affairs. Governors, members of the legislature, and private citizens 
all took part in the discussion and all were apparently animated by 
a sincere desire to find a workable solution of the problem. That 
they did not succeed in speaking the final word on the subject is not 
their fault, nor would it be just to charge up more recent failures 
to the account of the present generation of reformers. They have 
been doing what they could, but the balance on the credit side of 
their ledger would have been greater if they had been less cocksure 
of the efficacy of their remedies and less severe in their criticism? 
of others who offered suggestions. 

One of the most fruitful sources of inequality and injustice in 
the taxation system grew out of the old practice of undervaluation 
common throughout the state. In this practice the state set a bad 
example, which was followed by the counties, towns, school dis¬ 
tricts, and individuals in turn. Under the old law the state was 
supposed to levy a tax of one mill on the dollar of valuation for 
common school purposes, and the state board of equalization, esti¬ 
mating about how much money the common schools would require, 
fixed the valuation of the state to fit the one mill school tax. For a 
number of years prior to the change in the system the valuation of 
all property in the state as arbitrarily fixed by the state board of 
equalization, was approximately $600,000,000. 

County boards of supervisors, believing the state board of equali¬ 
zation would be influenced by the valuation of property in the 
county as established by the county committee on equalization of 
assessments, vied with each other in keeping down their assessed 
valuations. Township officers, in their efforts to evade as much as 
possible of the state and county taxes, caused the undervaluation of 
property and assessors who had sworn to assess all property at its 
true valuation, violated their oaths. Individuals, encouraged by the 
example of the state, county, and township officers, contended for 
still lower assessments and ended by making false reports of the 
amount of their personal property, in some cases leaving out a large 
percentage of that property entirely. 

But, while the contest to shrink assesse values to the minimum 
was a sharp one, there were localities where it was impossible to 
follow the popular custom to the limit. In many cities of the state 


106 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


the necessity of making public improvements required that a fair 
rate of assessment he established and as little property be permitted 
to escape taxation as possible. In many of those municipalities the 
real estate assessments represented from 60 to 70 per cent of the 
actual market value of the property, while the average in the rural 
districts was in some cases as low as 20 per cent, or less of the real 
value. 

This resulted in unequal tax burdens and complaints were filed. 
The law required the taxation of mortgages, but it was ignored be¬ 
cause the owner of the mortgage, believing that, mortgage taxation 
was double taxation if the property mortgaged was taxed at its full 
value, evaded the tax. Owners of stocks and bonds, representing 
in most cases property that was already taxes, refused or neglected 
to report their “intangible” assets to the assessor and thus another 
large class of values, assessable under the law, failed to appear in 
the assessment rolls. 

In this way the work of educating the property owning public 
in the gentle art of evading taxes went on from year to year. John¬ 
son’s excuse for evading his taxes was that Robinson evaded his. 
Brown knew that Jones had not reported his mortgages and refused 
to list his own bonds, while Schmidt hid his watch when the assessor 
made his rounds because Smith’s parlor organ had been overlooked. 
Certain conscientious citizens refused to swear to the valuation 
placed b}^ themselves on their personal property because they knew 
it was too low, and yet if they reported it at its true value they would 
be paying more than their fair share of the taxes. 

And yet all this time the tax reformers were busy with the laws 
in their attempts to find a remedy for the manifest evils that were 
so prominently noticeable in the system. New laws were passed at 
every session of the legislature and old laws were amended or re¬ 
pealed. The courts were appealed to time and again and judicial 
decisions were added to the complicated mass of literature which the 
student of the subject of taxation was called upon to wade through. 
In an article printed in The Milwaukee Sentinel on March 28^ 
1897, K. K. Kennan reported that there were 889 Wisconsin Su¬ 
preme Court decisions bearing on tax questions. No attempt has 
been made to compute the number of bills introduced in the legis¬ 
lature oi the number of measures passed relating to taxes and 
taxation, but they unquestionably run up into the thousands. 

But the remedy was not found because the-methods emploved 
were inadequate and futile. No systematic attempt was made to 
establish a system of taxation, the efforts being confined to the work 
of piecing and patching, to stretching and contracting, to borin^ 
holes here and filling holes-there, to lopping off in one place and 
adding on in another. Many of the new laws were contradictory. 
It was difficult to find two amendments that harmonized with each 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


107 


other, and the courts were kept busy construing the conflicting pro¬ 
visions with the hope of bringing order out of chaos. 

The members of the Wisconsin legislature were, however, travel¬ 
ing a path that would lead them to results later on. Or, it may be 
more accurate to say, will lead them to results, for, while great im¬ 
provement has been made, the end sought has not been attained as 
yet. 

One of the first, if not the first, efforts to shake down the chaotic 
mass of taxation laws into some semblance of a system was made in 
187.3, when State Senator F. W. von Cotzhausen of Milwaukee in¬ 
troduced bill No. 46S, entitled: “A bill to provide for the collection 
of certain statistics with a view to more fully equalizing the state 
taxes.” 

The immediate inspiration for the introduction of this measure 
was the filing of a large number of petitions asking the legislature 
to repeal the laws exempting church and other property from taxa¬ 
tion. A committee was appointed, of which Senator Cotzhausen 
was chairman, to consider the matter, and they worked industriously 
in tlieir efforts to determine the value of the property the exemption 
of'which was complained of. Incidentally it occurred to the com¬ 
mittee that it would be a wise plan to have a commission appointed 
to prepare for the legislature such statistics and other information 
relative to property in the state as would be of use in framing taxa¬ 
tion laws. The bill was passed, but on March 10, 1873, Gov. Wash¬ 
burn returned it with his veto to the senate, explaining that the 
expense of gathering the statistics would be great, and that they 
would not be reliable when gathered, as the actual value of property 
could not be ascertained by examining the records of sales, the con¬ 
sideration named in the deed being in many cases merely nominal. 
"A consideration of $1 named in a deed will pass the title as well 
as $10,000,” said the governor. 

Manifestly the governor was mistaken in this instance, as it is 
to the sales records of real estate that all authorities now go to make 
comparisons between assessed and actual values, leaving out of con¬ 
sideration as a matter of course all transfers where there is any 
reason to believe the real purchase price is not named in the deed. 
But, however mistaken Gov. Washburn may have been, there was not 
enough sentiment behind the movement to pass the bill over his veto 
and it was permitted to drop for the time being. 

At the next session of the legislature, 1874, Assemblyman Os¬ 
born revived the matter by introducing joint resolution No. 18A, 
which was worded as follows: 

“Resolved by the assembly, the senate concurring, that the governor 
designate three suitable persons to revise the laws for the assessment 
and collection of taxes, and whose duty it shall he.to report to the next 
session of the legislature within five days after the commencement of 
the session.” 

This resolution was introduced on Jan. 29, 1874, and indefl- 


108 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


nitely postponed by the assembly on Feb. 25, 1874, on report from 
the committee of the whole. It will be remembered that the assem¬ 
bly that year was made up of reformers—progressives they would 
be now called—as the election of 1873 had been carried by the 
grangers, their majority in the assembly being overwhelming. Gov. 
William R. Taylor had been elected to succeed Gov. Washburn and 
a clean sweep had been made of the lower house, the republicans 
holding the senate by a majority of one. 

No one will accuse the granger majority in the assembly of 
conspiring to defeat taxation reform legislation. It was simply 
and solely inability to grasp the needs of the situation that defeated 
the resolution. Marvin Osborn, the author of the resolution, was 
elected to represent the First district of Rock county. He was a 
republican and a farmer. Had the granger assembly seen fit to pass 
his resolution the work of revision would at least have had a begin¬ 
ning. As it was, it was delayed for twenty-three years. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


109 


CHAPTER II. 

Fight for Tax Commission Begun. 

To K. K. Kennan, the Milwaukee attorney, is due more than to 
any other one man the credit for giving Wisconsin a tax commis¬ 
sion. There are good people in Wisconsin who in the innocence 
of their hearts believe that whatever advancement has been made 
in taxation reform should be credited to the administration of Gov. 
La Eollette, but this is an exaggerated estimate of the services ren¬ 
dered to the state in this particular field of activity by the present 
senior United States senator. That he contributed to the result by 
his sensational, if belated, agitation of the subject of taxation legis¬ 
lation doubtless is true, but it was (a) the Creation of the tax com¬ 
mission and (b) the work of the tax commission that brought about 

a revision of the laws and the establishment of a new svstem of ad- 
• • * ‘ 

ministering the laws under strict supervision by the commission, that 
in reality accomplished results. 

Mr. Kennan began his work for the creation of a commission in 
1889, at which time a bill drawn by him was introduced in the as¬ 
sembly by Peter Leonard of Price county. This bill was No. 383A. 
Tt was considered by the committee on assessment and collection of 
taxes and, on March 29, was reported for indefinite postponement. 
Later it was considered in committee of the whole, from which 
body it was reported without amendment on motion of Henry E. 
Legler, representative from the Seventh Milwaukee district. The 
bill was indefinitely postponed on March 30, 1889. 

The history of the introduction of and work for this measure is 
an interesting one. Mr. Kennan, its author, was then tax commis¬ 
sioner of the Wisconsin Central railroad company and for several 
years he had been acquiring practical experience in the operation 
of the Wisconsin tax laws. The company he represented owned 
large tracts of land in the northern part of the state, where new 
counties were being organized. It was natural, therefore, that the 
inadequacies—to put it mildly—of the system should strike him 
forcibly, as his time was spent in efforts to straighten out tangles 
resulting from the .ignorance or prejudice of local taxing officers 
and the uncertain meaning of the laws themselves. He believed 
that, if a commission of competent men were employed to compile 
statistics relating to the taxes collected, together with facts con¬ 
cerning the operation of the laws, the inequalities and injustice 
necessarily attending upon the enforcement of the illogical, con¬ 
flicting and uncertain statutes by taxing officers with elastic con¬ 
sciences, the consequence would be a speedy attempt to remedy the 
defects in the system that would surely be pointed out. To this 
end he prepared an address which he delivered before the committee 
to 'whom the consideration of the bill was assigned. Considerable 


110 


Political Reform tx Wisconsin. 


time was spent by him as a member of the “third house/* 7 lobbying 
for the passage of the measure. The net result of his work was 
encouraging, although the bill failed of passage. The seed was 
planted, but it did not bear fruit until eight years later. 

In 1891 and 1893 Mr. Kennan was out of the state, but the 
work was not entirely neglected. At the legislative session of 1891 
Assemblyman Id. J. Desmond, who represented the First Milwau¬ 
kee district, introduced by title a bill to create a commission to in¬ 
vestigate the taxing system. This action was taken after consulta¬ 
tion with several members and the bill was introduced by title only 
as the last day for the introduction of new business had arrived 
and there was no time to prepare the measure. Nothing ever came 
of the effort as the bill was never even drawn. 

In 1893 John Ringte of Wausau, member of the assembly from 
Marathon county, introduced bill No. 439A, providing for the ap¬ 
pointment of one commissioner to make a thorough investigation 
of the subject of taxation and report his conclusions to the legis¬ 
lature at the next biennial session. Mr. Ringle was himself well 
acquainted with the assessment and taxing system and he was also 
familiar with the fact that there was a large and spreading dis¬ 
content among taxpayers. He had served several terms in county 
offices where he came in direct contact with the taxpayers and noted 
the justice of many of their complaints. 

Mr. Ringlets bill passed the assembly, but was defeated in the 
senate. The vote in the assembly was T4 to 12, in spite of the fact 
that the committee on “retrenchment and reform/ 7 a body created 
by the democratic legislators to help them make a good record 
while in control of the state’s affairs, was opposed to the passage 
of the measure. The names of such men as the present governor, 
J. 0. Davidson, W. H. Austin, Henry Hagemeister and A. R. Hall 
appear among those of members who voted for the bill when it came 
up in the assembly for passage. The measure failed of passage in 
the senate. 

In 1895 Mr. Kennan, who had returned to the state from Eu¬ 
rope, again took up the work of education, as it may be called. When 
the legislature convened he appeared at Madison with the draft of 
a new bill similar to the one introduced in 1889 by Assemblyman 
Leonard. The proposed law was made to combine so far as was 
possible the best features of commission laws enacted in other 
states, and carried an appropriation of $6,000 annually to pay the 
expenses of the commission. 

This bill was introduced in the assembly by William O’Neil of 
Bayfield county and the work of securing its passage was vigorously 
pushed. It was introduced on Feb. 12, 1895, and referred to the 
committee on assessment and collection of taxes. On April 10 it 
was reported by the committee with amendments of a minor char¬ 
acter, and again, on April 12, other minor amendments were re- 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


Ill 


ported, all of which were adopted on April 16 under suspension 
of the rules. The bill was passed the same day by a vote of 62 to 15. 

In the senate journal this bill, No. 604A, is an elusive subject. 
So imperfect is the record that it would be necessary to read the 
entire journal from cover to cover to correct omissions in the index 
and history of bills; and even then it may be found that the daily 
records of the proceedings are at fault, and not the index. 

In the “History of Bills,” which is supposed to be a complete 
abstract of all proceedings with respect to each bill, No. 604A 
is thus reported: 

“No. 604A, a bill authorizing the appointment of a tax commission 
and appropriating a sum of money therein named. Received from assem¬ 
bly 777; assessment and collection of taxes, 777; concurrence recom¬ 
mended, 782; laid over 789.” 

Here the story stops, as the index does not show any further 
action except two conflicting entries, as follows: “Recalled from 
assembly, 826; returned from assembly, 626.” This last page num¬ 
ber should read “826,” as the gction referred to really appears on 
that page and not on page “626.” This ends the recorded action of 
the senate on one of the most important measures considered that 
session. 

But the assembly journal record would indicate that there was 
really something doing with the bill after all. On page 1129 of 
that journal there appears a message from Walter L. Houser, chief 
clerk of the senate, to the effect that the “senate has refused to 
concur in 604A,” and other bills. 

Mr. Kennan was of the opinion that the appropriation carried 
by the bill was the cause of its defeat, as the income of the state 
at that time was so moderate that the legislature was disposed to 
“cut corners” more closely than is the practice in this day of largely 
expanded resources. But the fight for the measure was a warm one 
and the record of the vote in the assembly showed that it was popular 
in that house. It is unfortunate that the vote in the senate can 
not also be found. 


112 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER III. 

Temporary Tax Commission Created. 

The statute authorizing the appointment of the first tax com¬ 
mission was enacted by the legislature of 1897 and signed by Gov. 
Edward Scofield. The bill, No. 345A, was drawn by K. K. Ken- 
nan, and introduced by Assemblyman Merriman of the Third Rock 
county district on Feb. 9, 1897. It was referred to the committee 
on assessment and collection of taxes, consisting of N. B. Treat, 
chairman, Wynn Edwards, Albert R. Hall, King S. Staples, Charles 
Polacheck, Horace N. Polly, and Herman Schellenberger. On 
March 24 this committee reported the bill for indefinite postpone¬ 
ment and two days later it was indefinitely postponed with a large 
batch of other bills that had been condemned by the committee. 

This action would have disposed of the bill permanently had 
not its friends determined to make any concession necessary in order 
to secure the establishment of a commission. The bar to its passage 
was still to be found in the appropriation clause, and Mr. Kennan, 
having seen his work in previous years all brought to naught by this 
one obstacle, determined to win at any cost and informed the mem¬ 
bers that he would undertake to raise by private subscription the 
money required to pay the members of the commission for their 
work if they would amend the bill by cutting out the appropriation 
and pass it. His offer was accepted. 

The day following the indefinite postponement of the bill it was 
restored to the calendar on motion of W. H. Flett of Lincoln county 
and recommitted to the committee on claims. On March 31, this 
committee reported by its chairman, George H. Ray of La Crosse, 
recommending that the bill be amended by striking out section 8, 
the section containing the appropriation provision. The amend¬ 
ment was adopted and the bill passed without a call of the roll. 

The bill was then messaged to the senate where a few minor 
verbal amendments were made and it was then passed by a vote of 
20 to 8, as follows: 

Yeas—Senators Baxter, Davis, Dennett, Devos, Green. Lamoreaux, 
Mailer, McGillivray, Mills, Putnam, Riordan, Roehr, Solliday, Stebbins, 
Stout, Thayer, Welton, Whelan, Whitehead, Woodworth, 20. 

Nays—Senators Austin, Burke, Fisher, McMullen, Pierce, Phillips. 
Whitman, Withee, 8. 

Absent or not voting—Senators Conger, Mayer, Munson, and You- 
rnans, 4. 

This brief statement of the facts relating to the passage of the 
bill and the creation of the first tax commission does not give even 
the shadow of an idea of the amount of work required to win success 
even at that late date, when the subject of taxation had been under 
debate for more than forty years with no hope of settlement or 
even reasonable progress. under existing conditions. It was ac- 



Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


113 


knowledgecl that “something must be done.” There was no dispute 
over the proposition that the laws must be changed and an attempt 
made to adopt an orderly and reasonable system of assessment and 
collection of taxes for the support of the government. 

And yet it was impossible to secure the enactment of a law that 
would entail expense upon the state for the prosecution of the work 
of investigation that must necessarily precede any legislation along 
reformatory lines. Even A. R. Hall, the man who had talked most 
frequently and vehemently about the failure of the railroad com¬ 
panies to pay their just proportion of the taxes, was a member of 
the committee in the assembly that reported the bill for indefinite 
postponement. On the other hand, Senators Roehr, Whitehead, 
Green, Devos and Riordan, as well as Assemblyman Ray and others 
who were subsequently held up to public scorn as men who were 
opposed to the equalization of tax burdens, were the men who gave 
Mr. Kennan most effective and persistent aid in his efforts to secure 
the enactment of the law. 

After its passage through the two houses the bill went to Gov. 
Scofield shorn of its appropriation clause and the governor made 
no secret of his determination to send it back without his approval. 
He frankly stated that he would not be put in the position of asking 
men competent to perform so important a work for the benefit of the 
state to give their time and pay their own expenses while in the 
state’s service. He wanted a commission; he believed the taxing 
system should be reformed; his sympathies were all with the pur¬ 
poses of the measure. But he felt that the law as it stood placed him 
in a false position and he did not purpose going out on a begging 
tour in the interests of the state asking such important service gratis 
of any of its citizens. He believed the state should be willing to pay 
the cost of doing the work devolving upon a commission of this 
character. 

In this emergency Mr. Kennan came to the front again with a 
letter to Gov. Scofield, which is reproduced here as it was the means 
of saving the bill from death by veto. This letter has never before 
appeared in print, but it is. of so much historical value that no 
apology is required for inserting it in full in this review. 

Madison, Wis., April 24, 1897. 
“His Excellency, Edward Scofield, Governor. 

“Dear Sir: In reference to bill No. 354A, a few words of explana¬ 
tion may not be out of place. 

“This bill was drawn by me in 1889 and an effort was made to com¬ 
bine in it the best features of several similar bills which had become 
laws in other states. The compensation for the commissioners proposed 
in this original bill was $0,000. In spite of hard work on the part of 
myself and others the bill failed to pass—probably on account of the 
appropriation. Similar bills were proposed in 1891 and 1893, but I was 
absent from the state and no great effort was made to secure their 
passage. 

“In 1895 Mr. O’Neil of Bayfield introduced a bill which was the 
same as the present 354A, except that it provided for an appropriation 


114 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


of $6,000. This bill passed the assembly by a vote of about 63 to 15, and 
was concurred in by the senate; but in the confusion of the last day it 
was recalled by the senate and died there. 

“No 354A, as originally introduced, provided that the commissioners 
should be entitled to such compensation as the governor should deem just 
and reasonable. When it became evident that the bill could not be 
passed with this provision, or, indeed, with any provision calling for an 
appropriation, I assured certain members that if it could be passed with¬ 
out an appropriation I was satisfied that there would be no difficulty in 
raising the necessary funds for a commission of voluntary contributions 
of taxpayers of the state. 

“In giving this assurance I was not speaking at random, but only 
made the statement after I had conferred with a number of business 
men of large means who promised me that the money would be forth¬ 
coming when needed. 

“Of course, it is possible that there are public spirited men of ability 
who would serve on such a commission without compensation; but there 
is a great amount of clerical work which ought to be done in securing 
and classifying statistics, etc., and my estimate of the amount needed for 
clerical work, stationery, postage and traveling expenses is $1,500. A 
much larger sum could be used to advantage but this is the minimum 
sum compatible with anything like thorough and efficient work. 

“As to the pay of the three commissioners I estimate (on a basis of 
200 days’ work, say 100 days for the chairman and 50 days each for the 
other two members) that $2,500 to $3,000 would be sufficient to secure 
the services of men of such special fitness and high standing that their 
report would be of great and permanent value. 

“While it is hardly practicable to do much within the next three 
days, I am confident that before the first of June (the time set for the 
appointment of the commissioners) I can present you with a satisfac¬ 
tory guarantee that the funds needed for the commission will be forth¬ 
coming. 

“As you are no doubt aware, there are many features of our present 
taxing system that are unsatisfactory, and there is a popular demand 
that some practical measures should be taken to simplify and improve 
our present laws. 

“The interests involved are enormous. We raise in this state over 
$15,000,000 in taxes annually and there are many intelligent men who 
believe that the best interests of the state require that this great sub¬ 
ject, which affects the pockets of every taxpayer in the state, should 
receive more attention than is ordinarily given it by the legislature. 

“It seems to me that if the taxpayers of the state want a tax com¬ 
mission bad enough to put their hands in their pockets and pay for it, 
they should have the privilege. 

“Hoping that you will see your way clear to sign the bill, I remain, 

“Very respectfully yours, 

(Signed) “K. K. KENNAN.” 

With this assurance in hand, Gov. Scofield signed the bill and it 
became Chapter 340, laws of 1897, and he appointed Burr W. Jones 
of Madison, K. K. Kennan of Milwaukee, and George Curtis, Jr., 
of Merrill as commissioners. The first meeting of the commission 
was held on June 10, 1897, in the office of the secretary of state, 
at which time Burr W. Jones was elected chairman and K. K. 
Kennan secretary of the commission. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


115 


CHAPTER TV. 

Work of the First Commission. 

Mr. Kennan was as good as his word, for lie raised by private 
subscription the money required to pay the expenses of the com¬ 
mission. It can not be said that the commissioners were paid for 
their work, but their clerk hire, postage, and traveling expenses were 
probably all provided for, and, with the exception of Mr. Kennan, 
himself, some contribution toward remuneration for time expended 
was also made. As secretary of the commission, Mr. Kennan pre¬ 
pared the statistical appendixes which fill something like 100 pages 
of the report transmitted to the legislature in 1899 and which rep¬ 
resents a vast amount of research work as well as compilation of 
tables, analyses of figures, and preparation of explanations and con¬ 
clusions that must have taken much time. These tables are today 
of incalculable benefit to the student of the history of taxation in 
Wisconsin, as in many cases the figures contained therein can be 
found in no other place. 

The main portion of the report to the legislature was prepared 
by the three commissioners, Messrs. Jones, Kennan, and Curtis. 
It is a book of 276 pages and is filled from cover to cover with im¬ 
portant and valuable information. All three members of the com¬ 
mission were lawyers of ability and they brought to the task of com¬ 
piling and explaining laws that made up the taxing system of this 
state trained legal minds. The system was analyzed, its weak 
points uncovered and pointed out, and suggestions for improvement 
in the method of assessing property were made. As the report it¬ 
self is available to the student it is unnecessary to go into details 
here with respect to its contents. 

Meanwhile there were others who were studying the subject with 
equal interest and it became apparent that a united effort would 
be made to correct one of the most serious defects in the existing 
system—undervaluation. The general belief that the corporations 
—railroads, express, sleeping car, telephone, and telegraph com¬ 
panies were not taxed at their true value was spreading and having 
its effect. It became apparent to thoughtful men that the assessed 
valuation of all classes of property in the state would be raised with 
a consequent increase in the amount of money collected in the form 
of taxes. 

But a mere increase in the revenues of the state was not the end 
sought. Tax equalization, the collection from all classes of prop¬ 
erty of an equal amount of taxes to be used in paying public ex¬ 
penses, was the aim of all the men who originally labored to bring 
about a change in the taxing system. Should the taxes upon one 
class of property be increased, it was necessary that there be a 
corresponding reduction elsewhere in order that real tax reform be 
attained. While not publicly stated in. definite terms, this idea had 
run through the minds of every man, private citizen and public 


116 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 



official alike, who had contributed to the work of preparing for a 
change. It is safe to say that, had it not been understood that the 
uncovering and assessment of large blocks of personal property and 
the proposed increase in corporation taxes would result in a de¬ 
crease in the taxes on real property, there would have been no pub¬ 
lic interest in the movement. It was equalization of taxes that 
interested taxpayers, not increased revenues. 

While the tax commissioners were working upon the task set 
for them, Gov. Edward Scofield began to look into the other phase 
of the problem, the receipts and disbursements of the state. On 
February 21, 1898, The Milwaukee Sentinel printed an article pre¬ 
pared by the governor on the state finances which contained a clear 
explanation of the sources of revenue and the manner in which the 
money was expended. The governor explained that it was a diffi¬ 
cult matter to make a statement of this character because of the 
peculiar system of bookkeeping then in force in the state depart¬ 
ments. As a matter of fact, there was no uniform system of ac¬ 
counting, the books in each department being kept independently 
of those in every other department. Gov. Scofield’s article was the 
first clear explanation of the state’s financial standing ever pub¬ 
lished, and it may be added that it was also the last. Of course, 
the reports of state officers are regularly printed in book form and 
may be examined and understood by citizens who are familiar with 
the business of the state, but the average layman, even a book¬ 
keeper, will find some difficulty in comparing the figures from the 
several departments and arriving at a satisfactory understanding 
of the financial affairs of the state. 

As a result of his investigations in the business departments, 
Gov. Scofield proposed two changes in the business methods of the 
state. He was himself a business man and could not see any reason 
why a balance could not be struck at any time that would show 
clearly and accurately the financial condition of the state, as well 
as the condition of each department that handled funds belonging 
to the state. Also he believed the legislature should be informed 
as to the probable needs of the state institutions at the beginning 
of each session in order that the appropriation might be made 
intelligently. 

With these ideas in mind he proposed two reforms: A central 
system of accounting and the preparation of a budget to be pre¬ 
sented to the legislature at the opening of each session. Having 
worked out his plans, he took steps to carry them into effect. He 
prepared a budget on his own motion. lie ascertained from the 
several boards the probable needs of the institutions over which 
they presided; estimates were made of the probable expenses of 
the state departments for the coming biennial term; the resources 
,of the state for the same period were given anxl the legislature was 
shown how, if the expenses were to be kept, within the limits of the 
state’s income, it would be necessary to cut some of the appropria- 


. Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


117 


tions, or levy a tax to make up the deficiency. This budget was 
incorporated into the governor’s message. 

Another feature of the message was the proposition to estab¬ 
lish a simplified central system of accounting. Gov. Scofield did 
not criticise past administrations for What he considered to be 
the unbusiness-like methods of keeping the state’s accounts. On 
the contrary, he explained that “with the practice of changing- 
bookkeepers with each change of administration it has been deem¬ 
ed impractical for any secretary of state or state treasurer to un¬ 
dertake, in the few years in which he holds office, to improve the 
system.” But, he said: “I believe the time has come when the 
state bookkeeping should be revised and simplified. It is possible 
the change can not be accomplished without extra help, as the 
bookkeepers in the departments named are kept fully occupied. I 
recommend, therefore, that the legislature consider the question 
of authorizing the temporary employment of one or more experts to 
take up the subject with the secretary of state and state treasurer 
and formulate a new system.” He then explained at some length 
the inadequacies of the existing method. While he believed the 
state to be something more than a business enterprise, he still main¬ 
tained that the business of the state in the transaction of which 
over $3,500,000 was handled annually, should be conducted on 
business principles. 

When the legislature of 1899 convened, the report of the tax 
commission was presented for the consideration of the members 
of that body. As has been said, this report is available to any one 
who wishes to investigate in detail the work of the commission, but, 
for the purposes of this review the recommendation of the com¬ 
mission alone are of enough importance to bear reproduction here 
in an abbreviated form. As.a preface to their summary of principal 
recommendations the commission said: 

“In presenting the following recommendations the members of the 
commission desire to express their regret that the time and means at 
their disposal were insufficient to enable them to elaborate any general 
or comprehensive plan for revising and improving the whole taxing 
system of the state. The vast extent and importance of the subject and 
the practical difficulties which stand in the way of any far reaching 
reform can hardly be appreciated by those who have not made a special 
study of the subject. While the work of the present tax commission 
falls far short of what its members had hoped to accomplish, and will 
probably be disappointing to many, it is at least a step in the right 
direction and may form a basis for more effective work along the same 
lines hereafter. For reasons which are stated in the introduction to 
this report no attempt has been made to draft laws embodying the recom¬ 
mendations noted below. If any of them meet with legislative approval, 
it will be a comparatively easy task to put them into the form of laws. 

1. The commission recommended that town taxes, exclusive of 
state, county and school, be limited to 2 per cent of the assessed 
valuation. 

2. Recommended that subdivision 13 of section 776, revised stat¬ 
utes, which conferred powers of villages on towns in certain cases, be 
repealed. 


118 


Political Reform ix Wisconsin. 


3. That the law authorizing the collection of a poll tax be repealed. 

4. That, with a view to preventing and remedying undervaluation 
by assessors, the general reassessment law be amended so that a reassess¬ 
ment can be compelled when under-valuation is shown, without proof 
that injustice on inequality has resulted and without liability to costs. 

5. That the time for preparing the tax roll and turning it over to 
the treasurer be extended in towns* and villages to the third Monday 
in December; that the time for collecting the taxes be extended to 
March 1—the town and village treasurer being authorized to charge 5 
per cent from and after February 1 to March 1—and that no extension 
after March 1 be granted. 

6. That the entire administration of the tax laws be placed in the 
hands, or at least under rigid supervision of capable and disinterested 
agents of the state, to be chosen and to have such tenure of office and 
compensation as to make them virtually free from the influences of 
political or popular favor or displeasure and enable them to give their 
entire time to official duty; such agents to consist of a state board or 
officer and such subordinate or district officers as may be necessary. * 

7. That an inheritance tax be levied with respect to personal prop¬ 
erty on both lenial and collateral inheritances, at the rate of 1 per cent 
on the former and 5 per cent on the latter, with the exception of $10,000 
in the case of lenial and $200 in the case of collateral inheritances; the 
revenue to be paid into the state treasury. 

“8. Corporations. 

“Our work has led us to the conclusion that all the corporations 
which are taxed on the basis of earnings or on a mileage basis pay 
relatively less taxes than other persons and less than they would pay 
on the basis of value. 

“For the reasons stated in the report we are not prepared either to 
recommend that the system of taxation be changed to the method of 
assessment by a state board or to decide as to the specific rates of taxa¬ 
tion which should be fixed if the present method should be continued. 

“(a) We recommend that the whole subject of taxation of quasi¬ 
public corporations be fully investigated either by a committee or by a 
board of state officers having full power to examine witnesses and com¬ 
pel the production of books and papers. 

“(b) We recommend that if the present system of taxing railroads 
be continued a new and closer classification of rates be fixed for the 
purpose of preventing the inequalities which arise under the system now 
in force. 

“(c) That the present plan of taxing railroads on the basis of mile¬ 
age be discontinued. 

“(d) That express companies be taxed either on the basis of value of 
their property in the state, including the franchise, to be assessed by a 
state board or on the basis of their gross earnings. 

“(e) That legislation be adopted preventing the evasions of the law 
as to taxation, by sleeping car companies.” 

There were therefore, before the legislature when it convened, 
the report of the temporary tax commission, and the two proposi¬ 
tions contained in Gov. Scofield’s message—to establish the prac¬ 
tice of presenting a budget at the opening of every legislative ses¬ 
sion and to reform the bookkeeping methods of the state. While the 
two latter propositions were not, strictly speaking, taxation matters, 
they related to state finances and were by their nature so closely 
associated with the subject of taxation that they should be con¬ 
sidered at the same time. There were also presented in the as¬ 
sembly alone during the session of 1899, fifty-three bills relating 
to taxation. 



( 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 
CHAPTER V. 


119 


Permanent Tax Commission Created. 


That there was no real controversy at any time concerning the 
necessity of tax reform in this state is fully established by the his¬ 
tory of the bill creating the permanent tax commission. As has 
been said, there were differences of opinion as to the steps to be 
taken to bring about that reform. There always had been opposi¬ 
tion to the license fee system of taxing railroad property. Suits 
had been instituted immediately after the passage of the law in 
1854 providing for the taxation of railroads under the license fee 
system and from time to time down to the final return to the ad 
valorem system in 1903 attempts were made to enact laws making 
the change. Senator von Cotzhausen in 1873 and 1874 made a 
fight in the legislature for a restoration of what he termed a 
“constitutional system of taxation.” State Senator J. V. Quarles 
made another fight in 1881 for the same cause. Assembly man 
Hall had several times introduced bills and resolutions calling for 
an investigation into the subject. The proposition* to increase the 
taxes of quasi-public corporations such as sleeping car, express, 
telephone and telegraph companies had been discussed at length. 
As has been shown, the attempt to create a tax commission had 
been fought over for ten years before 1899. But in all this con¬ 
troversy there was more dispute as to the method and plan to be 
adopted in reforming the taxing system than over the fact that 
such a reform was needed. 

The bill creating the permanent tax commission in 1899 in¬ 
dicated, by the manner in which it was handled, that at least one 
point of controversy had been satisfactorily disposed of. The work 
of the temporary commission, paid bv voluntary contributions from 
taxpayers, was of a character to convince the members of the legis¬ 
lature that it was worth while to supplement the efforts of Messrs. 
Jones, Kennan and Curtis by continuing the investigation into the 
subject along similar lines. The services of the commission had 
cost the state nothing; the members of that body had not been able 
to devote their entire time to the work of investigation, but their 
report contained so much information of positive value that the 
advocates of taxation reform were eager to take up the task where 
the first commission laid it down and proceed with the matter in a 
businesslike manner. 

Bill No. 356S, 1899, was introduced in the senate by the com¬ 
mittee on assessment and collection of taxes, Senators Whitehead, 
Thayer and Riordan, and referred to the joint committee on claims 
on March 30, 1899. April 11, the bill was reported from the com¬ 
mittee on claims by Senators Baxter, McGillivray and Weed, with¬ 
out recommendation. This action was probably requested by the 


I 


120 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


originators of the bill as on the same day the committee on assess¬ 
ment and collection of taxes introduced a substitute bill. 

April 13 Senator McGillivray moved to amend the substitute 
by making the time which the commission was to serve two years, 
instead of ten, as provided in the bill, but he later in the day with¬ 
drew his proposed amendment. The substitute bill was then adopt¬ 
ed and the bill was passed under suspension of the rules on mo¬ 
tion of Senator Roehr. The vote was unanimous, twenty-nine 
senators voting for the bill, four being absent. They were Sena¬ 
tors Knudson, Thayer, Whelen and Whitman. But three days 
were required for the passage of the bill after the committee re¬ 
ported it and the substitute was introduced. 

In the assembly the work was performed with almost equal ex¬ 
pedition. • It was messaged over to the lower house on April 13, 
and, having already been considered by the committee on claims, 
it was “read first and second times and placed in regular order on 
calendar.” The following day Assemblyman A. R. Hall requested 
that it be referred to the committee on assessment and collection 
of taxes, which was done. That committee consisted of A. R. 
Hall, chairmans and Assemblyman H. N. Polley, P. A. Orton, T. 
J. McGrath, W. A. Barber, Thomas McDonald and John McGreer. 

April 18, four days later, this committee reported the bill 
back with the recommendation that it be concurred in, and on the 
same day Mr. Hall called up the bill with the unanimous consent 
of the assembly. Mr. Hall then moved to suspend the rules and 
put the bill on its passage. The motion was carried and the bill 
was passed by a vote of 62 ayes, 15 nays, 23 absent or not voting. 
Those voting aye were: 

Assemblymen Adams, Anderson, Baldock, Barber, Barlow, Becker, 
Buffington, Catlin, Dengel, Dodge, Eline, Flaherty, Fogo, Frost, Galaway, 
Germer, Gilmore, Grootemaat, Hall, Harvey, Holland. Hurlbut, Hum¬ 
phrey, Ives, Jensen, Johnston, Keene, Logan, McDonald, McGrath, 
McGreer, McLeod, Minch, Moor, Morse, Mosher, Olson, Orton, Parker, 
Polley, Richardson, Rowell, Rusk, J. Ryan, M. W. Ryan, Sarau, Schoen- 
baum, Slade, Sneddon, Sturdevant, Thiesenhusen, Thomas, True, Vander- 
cook, Wells, Wheeler, Williams, Wylie, Zinn, and Mr. Speaker (George 
II. Ray). 

Noes—Assemblymen Buttles, Gastrin, Daggett, Dahl, Evans, Feige. 
Guth, Hartung, Plolcomb, Johnson, Kempley, Lang, Loth, Soltwedel, 
and Willott. 

It was clear from this action of the two houses of the state 
legislature that there was no political issue relating to taxation re¬ 
form in this state in the year 1899. The people of the state, as 
veil as the member, of the le^islatui e, were practically united in 
the desire to bring about needed changes in the laws. There were 
some differences of opinion as to what changes probably would be 
made, or ought to be made, it is true, but these differences were 
purely and solely between individuals—there was no organization 
for or against any plan for amending the existing laws. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


121 


The work of education along this line had been going on for 
years. Cotzhausen, Quarles, Kennan, Hall, Whitehead, Orton, Rin- 
gle, the members of the first tax commission, and members of com¬ 
mittees in the two houses of the legislature had contributed their 
part to the educational campaign. Gen. Benjamin Harrison had, on 
Feb. 22, 1898, delivered an address in Chicago on the subject of tax¬ 
ation that was widely copied and read with deep interest. The 
Milwaukee Journal devoted column after column—at times whole 
pages—to this subject, and it received full credit for its efforts. 
In point of fact, the years between 1876 and 1900 were full of 
tax reform talk and the discussion was fruitful of results. 

Let no one man attempt to monopolize the credit for what was 
accomplished in these busy years of taxation reform. As has been 
said K. K. Kennan, by his early advocacy of the commission plan 
of solving the problem and his untiring, efficient services as a mem¬ 
ber of the first commission, is probably entitled to more credit than 
should be given to any other one citizen. He was the pioneer and 
he continued in the work until the permanent commission was 
appointed. He made sacrifices that no citizen should be called 
upon to make to his state, because they were really unnecessary, and 
of late years a strenuous effort has been made to ignore bis work 
and minimize his services and those of others who were instru¬ 
mental in working out the problem—so far as it has been worked 
out. 

It is not best to leave this particular period without first clear¬ 
ing up for the benefit of the reading public the record of the begin¬ 
nings of taxation reform in Wisconsin. This is necessary because 
extravagant claims have been put forth and widely believed that 
are not borne out by the facts. In the Voters’ Handbook, a polit¬ 
ical pamphlet circulated in the campaign of 1902 in the interests 
of the then state administration, this statement is found on page 
sixty-eight: 

“The first man in the state of Wisconsin, indeed, in the whole country, 
to take the public platform and lay hold of the question of taxation in 
such a broad, comprehensive and fearless way as to arouse general atten¬ 
tion was Robert M. La Follette. Assailed violently by that portion of the 
press which takes its orders from the railway lobby, but could neither 
deny his facts or answer his arguments, he held firmly to his course. 
His voice was heard in every part of the state, ringing clear and strong 
above the storm which beat upon him alone. It is an easy matter to 
espouse a cause if a majority are for it. It is not difficult then to be wise 
with tardy counsel or brave with petty criticism. But it tries the iron 
in a nature to lead in advance of all support year after year in a losing 
fight against all odds. It tests the wisdom and judgment of statesman¬ 
ship to"determine when and how to wage contest against great corpora¬ 
tions which control legislation, dgainst the allied political machine of 
state and county organization, against a press which is subservient to its 

master.” 

As evidence of the truth of this statement the assertion is made 
that Mr. La Follette delivered an address before the Tower Hill 


122 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


chautauqua, in which “he discussed the relation of corporations to 
legislation, their power in government, exercised through the lobby 
on senators, members and executive, in controling action on taxa¬ 
tion and other important questions affecting the interests of the 
people.” It is a well known fact that Mr. La Follette did deliver 
an address at the time and place mentioned, in the summer of 1897. 

During the session held the previous winter the legislature had 
created the temporary tax commission composed of Burr W. Jones, 
K. K. Kennan, and George Curtis, Jr. The. spectacle of Mr. La 
Follette standing like Ajax defying the lightning would be an in¬ 
teresting one if it were a fact that he was the only man in the state, 
“indeed, in the whole country,” who was interested in the subject 
of tax reform. But Jones, Kennan, and Curtis, none of them a 
candidate for office, it should be remembered, were devoting their 
time to a practical study of this question at the time when Mr. La 
Follette is represented as sending his clarion voice over the state, 
“ringing clear and-strong above the storm which beat upon him 
alone.” » 

And, as a matter of fact, Mr. La Follette’s chautauqua address 
was not devoted to taxation. It was an attack upon the corpora¬ 
tions. It was, in effect, his Ann Arbor speech, or, to speak more 
accurately, the Ann Arbor address was a modification of the Fern 
Dell speech, a toned down, polished, adapted address made to fit 
and fill the ears of university students. The Fern Dell speech was 
delivered before an audience made up largely of farmers and it was 
designed to fire their blood and cause them to rise in their wrath 
and sweep the corporations into their proper places. This was to 
be accomplished by sending delegates to the next state convention 
who would help to nominate Mr. La Follette for governor. 

But there was little about taxation in that speech, or either • 
of them. Mr. La Follette had not made an exhaustive study 
of the subject at that time. Even in 1901, when he becamo 
governor of the state and wrote a message which he read to the 
legislature with great dramatic effect, he had not formed any w T ell 
defined opinions on the subject of taxation, and so far from gather¬ 
ing his strength for a mighty effort and, alone and unaided, push¬ 
ing the “storm” which had “beat upon him alone” over into an¬ 
other state or out into the ocean beyond, he mildly advised the 
members of the legislature to be careful, informing them that, 
according to figures furnished him by the bureau of labor and in¬ 
dustrial statistics, “the railroad companies had been fairer than 
the average individuals, who, as to the great mass of personal pro¬ 
perty assess themselves.” 

So far from being the only man in Wisconsin to take an inter¬ 
est in the taxation reform movement in that particular period, 
Mr. La Follette was probably the least important factor in that 
movement. It will be remembered that there was no subject of 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


123 


discussion that excited so much public interest during the interval 
between the legislative session of 1897 and 1899. There was no 
political issue, it is true, but there was a warm debate as to the 
wisdom of steps already taken and the character of future efforts 
along the same line. One of the most fruitful causes of debate was 
the action of Gov. Scofield and the legislature of 1897 on the ex¬ 
press and sleeping car taxation bills passed by the latter in the 
closing hour of the session and vetoed by Gov. Scofield on con¬ 
stitutional grounds. The newspapers were full of the discussion; 
editorials were written by the editors of newspapers all over the 
state and private citizens wrote letters to the press expressing their 
opinions on the subject. 


124 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER VI. 

The Express and Sleeping Car Tax Bills. 

The history of the bills’about which there grew up an acri¬ 
monious controversy in 1898 is an interesting one. No. 129 A. “An 
act to define express companies and to prescribe the mode of 
taxing the same, and to fix the rate of taxation thereon;” and 
No. G19A, having for its object the levy and collection of a tax in 
the form of a license fee on palace, drawing room and sleeping car 
companies, were introduced by the Hon. J. 0. Davidson, then a 
member of tlie assembly and now governor of the state, in Jan¬ 
uary, 1897. The record of one of these bills will serve the purposes 
of this review, as they were both successfully urged for passage 
and both met the same fate. 

No. 129A, was introduced oy Assemblyman Davidson, Jan. 
28, and referred to the committee on assessment and collection of 
taxes, in which committee it remained until March 26, when it was 
reported back with an amendment. On March 30, Mr. Davidson 
himself offered an amendment in the form of a substitute, which, 
together with the bill was laid over until the following day. 

When the matter came before the assembly the next day, As¬ 
semblyman Latta attempted to have the bill and substitute re¬ 
ferred to the committee on assessment and collection of taxes, but 
his motion was defeated by a vote of 14 yeas to 74 nays, which 
shows that the measure was a popular one in that house. The sub¬ 
stitute was then adopted and the bill as amended was ordered to 
engrossment and third reading. 

On April 9, both committees having reported the bill correct, 
Hie measure was passed by a vote of 83 yeas to 3 nays, the mem¬ 
bers voting “no” being Assemblymen Latta, Polley, and Utt. 

On April 12 bill No. 129A was messaged over from the assem¬ 
bly to the senate and referred to the committee on state affairs 
and on the fifteenth it was reported for concurrence with an 
amendment. The next day it was rereferred to the committee on 
state affairs which body considered it until April 20, when an 
amendment in the form of a substitute was reported and recom¬ 
mended for passage. 

On April 21, the amendment first submitted by the committee 
on state affairs was considered and rejected because a more satis¬ 
factory form of amendment had been incorporated into the sub¬ 
stitute bill prepared by the same committee. The substitute was 
adopted and the bill ordered to third reading. The following day 
the bill was read a third time and concurred in without a call of 
the roll. 

The measure was then messaged back to the assembly and on 
the same day the senate amendment in the form of a substitute 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


125 


was concurred in on a division of the house. The roll was not 
called. All this occurred on the last day of the regular session, 
April 24, 184/, and both houses adjourned the same evening, to 
meet again in special session later for the purpose of adopting the 
revised statutes then in the hands of the revision committee. 

The express company tax bill went to Gov. Scofield with other 
measures passed during the closing hours of the session and was 
signed by him. This last statement is an important one in view 
of subsequent events. That the governor signed the bill may not 
generally be known, but such is the fact. It is probably that, if 
the file of original bills in the office of the secretary of state were 
examined, the express and sleeping car tax bills would be found 
with Gov. Scofield’s signature attached, but with a line drawn 
through it. 

Gov. Scofield erased his signature when he found that the bills 
had been irregularly passed. While they were still lying on the 
governor’s desk, M. J. Jeffris of Janesville encountered Walter 
Houser, chief clerk of the senate, in the capital park. Houser re¬ 
marked that the governor had made a mistake, or had got himself 
“into a hole,” or something to that effect, and Jeffris asked for 
particulars. He was informed by Houser that the express and 
sleeping car bills which had been signed by the governor had been 
irregularly passed and would be declared void by the courts. 

Mr. Jeffris, believing the governor was entitled to a knowledge 
of the facts, immediately called at the executive chamber and in¬ 
formed Gov. Scofield of his interview with Houser and the nature 
• of the statements made by that officer. The journals of the two 
houses were sent for and it was found the statements were correct. 
The roll had not been called on either bill. Gov. Scofield then 
erased his signature from the original bills. 

It would be unprofitable and a waste of valuable space to 
attempt to explain in detail why Chief Clerk Houser felt justified 
in concealing from the governor facts in his possession, of the im¬ 
portance of which he was fully conscious, and to a knowledge of 
which the governor w r as entitled. The Wisconsin factional war 
had not at that -time become general in its scope or openly bitter 
in its character. The La Follette faction, to which Houser be¬ 
longed, was unfriendly to Gov. Scofield, it is true, but that would 
not excuse an employe of the senate in deliberately concealing from 
that body and from the governor important facts that, kept secret 
until it was too late to correct the mistakes, would invalidate two 
of the most important measures passed by the legislature during 
the session. 

But, while Walter Houser’s motives may not definitely be 
known, it is a significant fact that the two taxation bills referred 
to were made the principal issue by the faction opposed to Gov. 
Scofield’s renomination in 1898. • An attempt was made to con¬ 
vince the people of Wisconsin that Gov. Scofield was opposed to 


126 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


taxation reform, or, at least, to the adequate taxation of corpora¬ 
tions. It is possible that even at that early date campaign material 
may have been, in the eyes of the leaders of the rapidly increas¬ 
ing “progressive” faction, of more importance than wholesome 
legislation, even when that legislation was sorely needed and ex¬ 
pected by the people of the state. 

The character of the campaign literature required is illustrated 
by the following quotation from the pamphlet, “Gov. Scofield’s 
Record, as Shown by His Official Acts,” page 20. This pamphlet 
has previously been referred to. It has published “by direction 
of the Republican club of Milwaukee county” and professes to give 
the record of a republican governor. Referring to the votes of the 
express and sleeping car taxation bills this republican club said: 

“These vetoes were sent to the legislature at the adjourned session, 
when it met solely for the purpose of taking action upon the revised 
statutes. Many members at that time did not return, and the governor 
knew that no bills could he introduced except by permission under a 
joint resolution of both houses, and a three-fourths vote of all the mem¬ 
bers in either house in favor of such resolution. When it is remembered 
that the governor stated to the author of these bills, the Hon. J. O. 
Davkhum, before any constitutional question was raised that he would 
veto them; that before vetoing them he was in extended conference with, 

‘ Bob’ Luscombe, the lobbyist against them; that if he asked for any 
opinion of the attorney general , no opinion upholding his veto was ever 
given by that official; that at this time he was using the free passes of 
these corporations, what is the inference we must draw from the fact 
of these vetoes?” 

As a sufficient answer to the first of these charges the follow¬ 
ing letter from Gov. James 0. Davidson to the writter of this re¬ 
view will suffice. 

“My Dear Sir—I have your favor of August 9 and note carefully 
your inquiry with reference to the following quotation from your letter: 
The governor (Scofield) stated to the author of these hills, the Hon. J. 
O. Davidson, before the constitutional question was raised, that he should 
veto them.’ 

“In reply permit me to say that I have no recollection of any such 
conversation between Gov. Scofield and myself. 

“I am, very truly yours, 

“J. O. DAVIDSON.” 

Gov. Davidson is credited with having an excellent memory. 
His private secretary, Senator Munson, says the governor has the 
best memory for facts and details of any man he has ever 
known. It was M. G. Jeffris with whom Gov. Scofield was in 
consultation before vetoing the bills, not “Bob” Luscombe. That 
incident already has been explained. It was lawful and the custom 
for officers to use passes at that time. 

Having erased his signature from the bills, Gov. Scofield on 
April 26 wrote a veto message which explains itself and which sub- 

[Note—The lines in italics are printed with underlining rules in the 
original pamphlet to add emphasis to the statement.] 




Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


127 


sequently became the subject of heated controversy. That mes¬ 
sage in full is as follows: 

“State of Wisconsin, 

“Executive Office, Madison, April 26, 1897. 
“To the Honorable the Assembly: 

“I have the honor to return herewith, without approval, hill No. 
129A, originating 1 in the assembly, entitled ‘An act to define express com¬ 
panies, to*prescribe the mode of taxing the same, and to fix the rate of 
taxation thereon.’ 

“The hill is returned for the reason that it failed of proper enact¬ 
ment. In its passage there was disregarded the very explicit direction 
of the constitution, that in the passage in either house of the legislature 
of any law which imposes, continues, or renews a tax * * * the 

question shall be taken by the yeas and nays, and three-fifths of all the 
members-eleet to such house shall in all cases be required to constitute 
a quorum.’ 

“To approve a measure so plainly and vitally defective would be to 
invite litigation and subject the state to unnecessary expense. 

“I desire to call your attention to the importance of this measure, 
and also to that of bill No. 619A, and to urge upon you the necessity of 
properly enacting both hills before the adjournment of this session. 

“If we are to maintain in this state a righteous system of taxation, 
it is necessary that we see to it that the large corporations doing busi¬ 
ness within our borders and receiving without discrimination or stint 
the full protection of our laws shall not escape paying their just share 
of the expenses of government. 

“Respectfully, 

“EDWARD SCOFIELD, 
“Governor.” 

When the legislature met in August to receive the report of 
the committee appointed to revise the statutes, these bills came up 
again. But a controversy immediately arose between the two 
houses as to the best method of handling the matter. The senate 
proposed to reintroduce the bills and pass them in a manner that 
would dispose of all doubt as to the regularity of the proceedings; 
the assembly proposed to pass them over the governor’s veto. The 
friends of the measures in the senate contended that even were the 
bills passed notwithstanding the governor’s objection, the irregu¬ 
larities in the first passage would not be cured and the enactments 
would still be unconstitutional. In their opinion, it was best to 
remedy the faults found in the proceedings by the governor and 
not attempt to override his opinion. For these reasons the propo¬ 
sition to pass the bills over the governor’s veto was defeated in the 
senate by a vote of yeas 17, nays 12. The record shows that several 
of the senators that later became strong partisans of Gov. Scofield, 
and who were then friendly to him, although there was no open war 
being waged on him at the time, voted in favor of the motion to 
disregard his veto, but the two-thirds majority was not secured. 
The vote was as follows: 

Yeas—Senators Baxter, Conger, Dennett, Fisher, Green, Mailer, 
Mayer, McGillivray, Munson, Putnam, Roehr, Solliday, Stout, Whelan, 
Whitehead. Withee, and Woodworth—17. 


128 


Politic AT; Reform in Wisconsin. 


Nays—Senators Austin, Lamoreaux, McMullen, Mills, Pierce, Phil¬ 
lips, Riordan, Stebbins, Thayer, Wilton, Whitman, and Youmans—12. 

Absent or not voting—Senators Burke, Davis, and Devos. 

In the assembly, A. E. Hall was the leader of the members who 
were in favor of passing the bills over the governor’s veto, and he 
succeeded in carrying his point. Mr. Hall was one of the best, if 
not the best, parliamentarians in the legislature, but he was not a 
lawyer. In his opinion, the objections urged by the governor to the 
manner in which the bills originally were passed were not well 
taken, or he believed that the action he proposed w r ould cure the de¬ 
fects pointed out. At all events that was the course he proposed 
and the one the assembly elected to follow. When the senate refused 
to stand by the assembly, however, it became necessary to adopt 
other measures. 

After the senate voted down the motion to pass the bill notwith¬ 
standing the objections of the governor, Senator Green of Mil¬ 
waukee introduced a joint resolution designed to cover the case. 
This resolution and the action taken upon it are important, as it 
clears up many disputed points in the history of the measures. It 
was introduced by Senator Green the day the attempt to pass the 
bills over Gov. Scofield’s veto failed, Aug. 19, 1897, and was as 
follows: 

“Joint resolution No. S3S. 

“Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That Senator 
Munson be permitted to reintroduce the two bills vetoed by the governor 
relating to the taxation of sleeping car and express companies. 

“First, a bill to define express companies and to prescribe the mode 
of taxation thereon. 

“Second, a bill to provide for the taxation of owners and lessees of 
parlor cars, drawing room cars, and sleeping cars. • 

“The communication from his excellency, the governor, in regard to 
these bills calls your attention to the importance of these measures, and 
also the importance of enacting these bills before the adjournment of 
this session. The passage of these bills in a correct and legal manner 
does away with the objections of his excellency, the governor, and will 
then, without doubt, meet with his approval.” 

This resolution passed the senate by a vote of 28 yeas to 2 
nays, Senators Youmans and Lamoreux voting against it, while 
Senators Burke and Davis were absent. It is clear from this that 
there was no disposition on the part of the senators, with the ex¬ 
ception of the two who voted against the resolution, to oppose the 
passage of the measures in a legal manner, and Gov. Scofield was 
pledged by the language of his veto message to sign them were 
they legally passed. 

But there was trouble in the assembly. When the joint resolu¬ 
tion came up in that body the same day, it was met with proposi¬ 
tions to amend, to substitute another resolution, and to delay, not¬ 
withstanding the fact that the session was about to close. Mr.’ Hall 
proposed a new resolution in the assembly authorizing Mr. David¬ 
son to introduce two entirely new bills, whereas the senate resolu- 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


129 


lion provided for the reintroduction of copies of the identical 
bills that already had been favorably acted upon by the two houses. 
There ought to be no question of the passage of the old bills; there 
was grave question whether new bills would receive the support of 
enough members of the two houses to pass them. This was one mis¬ 
take by Mr. Hall. 

Another mistake was in attempting to change the title of the 
bills so as to avoid the necessity of calling the roll, which change 
was to be effected by leaving out the words “tax” and “taxation” 
entirely. Mr. Hall’s resolution was defeated, yeas, 28, nays, 53. 

Mr. Ray then introduced a resolution, “that Mr. Davidson be 
permitted to introduce a bill to license express companies and a bill 
to license owners of drawing room cars, sleeping cars, and palace 
cars.” This resolution was adopted by a vote of 52 yeas to 23 nays. 

Assemblymen Stone and Hall then attempted to have the senate 
joint resolution amended, Mr. Stone proposing to substitute Mr. 
Davidson's name for that of Senator Munson, and Mr. Hall de¬ 
manding that all except the paragraph allowing Mr. Davidson to 
introduce two bills be stricken out. Both of these motions were 
lost. The senate resolution was then concurred in by a vote of 81 
veas to 1 nav. 

All of this maneuvering cost time and time was an essential 
item, a fact clearly demonstrated by the failure of the bills to pass 
a second time. So much time was wasted that it was too late to 
work them through after the resolution was passed. All other 
work of the session had been completed; there was nothing to do 
but pass these bills, and the members scattered to their homes with¬ 
out taking action on them. When the promoters of the movement 
to re-enact them found the wav cleared for the bills there was not a 
constitutional quorum present and the whole matter was dropped. 

In 1899 the express and sleeping car tax matters came up again 
in the form of bills introduced by the senate committee on assess¬ 
ment and collection of taxes. There were, in fact, four bills, later 
known as the “Whitehead bills,” as follows: 

No. 100S, providing for an ad valorem assessment for taxation 
purposes of express companies. 

No. 101S, providing for a similar tax on sleeping car compa¬ 
nies. 

No. 102S, for the taxation of freight line companies. 

No. 103S, for the taxation of equipment companies. 

All of these bills were prepared by the senate committee on as¬ 
sessment and collection of taxes, of which Senator Whitehead was 
chairman. It is a peculiar fact that, while the permanent tax 
commission had not yet been created* and the plan for making an 
ad valorem assessment of corporation property had not yet been 
perfected, these bills, the first of the kind ever drawn in this state, 
have required little amendment since they were enacted into law. 

Another important point with respect to these bills was the fact 


. 130 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


that there was no opposition to them in either house of the legisla¬ 
ture. Had taxation been an issue at that time, it is not reasonable 
to suppose that four taxation measures could be presented to and 
passed through both houses of the legislature without opposition. 
The bills were introduced Feb. 9, 1899, and passed through the 
routine course of such measures, finally coming up for passage in 
the senate on March 22. The roll was called and thirty-two votes 
were recorded in favor of all of the measures, one senator Fred 
Dennett, being absent. 

When these measures came up in the assembly they were re¬ 
ferred to the judiciary committee, consisting of W. G. Wheeler, P. 
A. Orton, L. J. Rusk, L. M. Sturdevant, Charles M. Catlin, A. W. 
McLeod, G. E. Vandercook, L. C. Harvey, W. E. Hoehle, George 
Ela, Francis Eline. This committee reported a few verbal amend¬ 
ments and the bill then went to the committee on assessment and 
collection of taxes made up of the following assemblymen: A. R. 
Hall, H. N. Polley, P. A. Orton, T. J. McGrath, W. A. Barber, 
Thomas McDonald, John McGreer. This committee also recom¬ 
mended verbal changes. 

On March 28 the^ bills, as amended, passed the assembly, all 
members present voting in the affirmative. There were 75 votes 
for the bills and none against them. Not much controversy there! 

The bills then went back to the senate and the assembly amend¬ 
ments were concurred in by a unanimous vote of all senators pres¬ 
ent. They then went to Gov. Scofield, who signed them, and they 
became chapters 111, 112, 113, and 114, laws of 1899. 

These were all “progressive measures,” but they were not WTit- 
ten by the men who afterward adopted the title of “progressive,” 
nor did they receive their main support from that class of legis¬ 
lators. By common consent Senator Whitehead’s name was given 
to all four bills and the laws after they were passed were called the 
“Whitehead tax laws.” 

And these taxation reforms were accomplished without opposi¬ 
tion at a time when Robert M. La Follette is pictured as standing 
grandly and courageously for tax reform while the storm of opposi¬ 
tion beat upon him alone. The truth is not always heroic or melo¬ 
dramatic, but plain common sense teaches that one ounce of truth is 
worth more than a ton of melodrama when historical accuracy is de¬ 
sired. In political campaigns, however, heroics cut an important 
figure at times. They have loomed large in Wisconsin politics during 
the last ten vears. 

V 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


131 


CHAPTER VII. 

The Discussion Becomes More General. 

The facts related demonstrate conclusively that the subject of 
taxation was not a political or factional issue at that time. In 
point of fact, it would appear from the record that, so far as the 
need of taxation legislation was concerned, the legislature was 
practically a unit. If any member was to blame for the failure to 
re-enact the two bills mentioned at the adjourned session of the 
legislature in 1897 that member was Mr. Hall himself, one of 
the most active, enthusiastic, and sincere tax reformers of that pe¬ 
riod of the state’s history. But Mr. Hall was not particularly 
friendly to Gov. Scofield; he had opposed his nomination the pre¬ 
vious year and his action in the assembly clearly indicates that it 
was his wish to take from the governor as much as possible of the 
credit due for the enactment of this important taxation legislation. 

It is true that, in the campaign of 1898, Gov. Scofield was 
mercilessly attacked and criticised for vetoing the two measures 
referred to. An attempt was made to show that the bills in ques¬ 
tion were not tax measures and that, therefore, his constitutional 
objections did not apply. They even went farther and asserted 
that “if the charges which the supporters of this legislation bring 
against the governor are true, then he is the victim of, or a party 
to, the greatest conspiracy to defraud the people in the history of 
the state.” 

Furthermore, it should be remembered that the language quoted 
was used in a pamphlet attack upon Gov. Scofield, not in an effort 
to enact taxation legislation. The records of the legislature, the 
messages of Gov. Scofield, the columns of the newspapers of the 
day may all be searched in vain for evidence that there was a po¬ 
litical issue or a factional division on the subject of taxation legis¬ 
lation. There were differences of opinion with respect to the 
character of the legislation to be enacted in some cases, but in the 
case of the two bills mentioned there was no such difference that 
was worthy of consideration. The bills were carelessly passed, it is 
true, and the irregularities were, in the opinion of the governor, 
who approved of the purpose and form of the two bills, of sufficient 
gravity to make them of doubtful constitutionality. He urged 
that they be regularly and lawfully passed. The failure to follow 
his suggestion was due to a mistake by Mr. Hall, who miscalcu¬ 
lated the amount of time that might be wasted in playing politics 
without endangering the passage of the measures. 

It was during this period that the factional dispute that was to 
break the republican party of Wisconsin into two rival camps had 
its first violent outbreak—an unsuccessful one, by the way. But 
the dispute was not one of principle, or measures for the public 
good. It was purely a personal matter. The issue as a personal 


132 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


issue as well. It was under the leadership of Robert M. La Follette 
and it was made up of the radical members of the party. Its ob¬ 
ject was to advance the political fortunes of Mr. La Follette. Inci¬ 
dentally some ©f the men who enlisted in his cause expected po¬ 
litical advancement for themselves. There were no real issues that 
could be appealed to to win support, so they invented issues. 

Up to the time of the adjourned session of the legislature of 
1897, at which the two bills in question failed of passage because 
of Mr. Hall’s ill advised delays and obstructive motions, Mr. La 
Follette had never mentioned the subject of taxation in any of his 
public addresses. He never visited the statehouse during the four 
years Gov. Scofield served as the state’s executive; he never ap¬ 
peared before a legislative committee in favor of tax legislation or 
legislation of any character. With a few noteworthy exceptions, 
the men who later joined the La Follette faction were men whose 
conspicuous inactivity in public life was their one distinguishing 
characteristic. 

Meanwhile, as has been shown, the first tax commission had 
been appointed for the purpose of investigating the subject and 
making recommendations to the legislature of 1899. The first 
attempt adequately to tax the express, sleeping, parlor, and draw¬ 
ing room car companies had, like many first attempts along new 
lines of legislation, failed through no deliberate fault of its pro¬ 
moters and not because of any opposition on the part of enemies, to 
be taken up at the next session of the legislature and put through 
without opposition. Already a movement was on foot to increase 
the taxes of insurance companies and the impression was gaining 
ground that the railroad companies would soon be required to in¬ 
crease their annual contributions to the state treasury. And all 
this had been accomplished without a campaign, without making 
the subject an issue. It had been accomplished because the general 
public, men in public life and private citizens, were becoming dis¬ 
satisfied with the old, crude, illogical system of general and personal 
property taxation that had been in force since the admission of the 
state. This dissatisfaction was manifested, as it had been in the 
past, by the number of taxation bills introduced at the legislative 
session of 1897, there being seventy-four bills in the assembly and 
fifteen in the senate, all relating to taxation. 

But there were other tax measures presented for the considera¬ 
tion of the legislature in 1899 about which there was more differ¬ 
ence of opinion than the ones already noted. Two bills in particu¬ 
lar, both introduced by Judge P. A. Orton of Darlington in the 
assembly, one proposing a change in the rate of taxation of life 
insurance companies, and the other increasing the rate of taxation 
imposed upon the smaller railroads of the state, whose taxes pre¬ 
viously had been merely nominal. 

These bills, as was natural, roused antagonism on the part of 
the interests affected. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


133 


Company, the one principally interested, sent a delegation to Mad¬ 
ison to oppose the measure. By the provisions of the bill the North¬ 
western Mutual company was to be assessed at the rate of 1 per cent 
on all its income, exclusive of rents from real estate and interest 
on government bonds. It was estimated at the time that this change 
in the law would increase the taxes of that company alone from 
$40,000 to approximately $250,000. As a reason for considering 
this tax excessive Judge H. L. Palmer, then president of the com¬ 
pany, in a letter to the Milwaukee Journal April 7, 1899, said: 

“A grievous injustice of the bill is that it imposes a tax here in 
Wisconsin upon the same income upon which the company is required 
to pay taxes in the states from which that income was derived. To 
make the point clear, the company was taxed in 1898 in thirty states 
upon the premiums received in those states. Premiums constitute a large 
part of the company’s income. Although that part of the income con¬ 
tributed by citizens of those thirty states has been there taxed, the bill 
proposes to tax that same income over again in this state, and for the 
benefit of this state, thus presenting a flagrant case of double taxation. 
Is this just? Is this right toward the policy holders of the company?” 

At the same time, Judge Palmer did not contend that no in¬ 
crease in the rate of taxation should be made. He suggested that 
his company would gladly meet the members of the tax commis¬ 
sion for the purpose of endeavoring to find some common ground of 
agreement for the settlement of the disputed question and offered 
to afford the members of the commission every facility for the 
examination of the books of the company in order that they might 
arrive at an accurate understanding of its business. 

This letter from Judge Palmer was the inspiration for a flood of 
general comment on the part of the state press mostly favorable to 
the position taken by the president of the largest corporation in the 
state, the Northwestern Mutual. It was argued that the legisla¬ 
ture should be fair—as fair as Judge Palmer professed himself to 
be. The fact that this great corporation was willing to meet the 
members of the legislature or the tax commissioners half way was 
considered to be an evidence that a way of settling the vexing taxa¬ 
tion problems had been found. The Milwaukee Journal, the paper 
that had called out Judge Palmer’s letter by its daily comments on 
the taxation reform movement and its strenuous support of Gov. 
Scofield’s public and official utterances on the subject, was jubilant 
at the prospect of immediate reform, or, to speak more accurately, 
the prospect of material progress toward ultimate reform, but it 
did not counsel radical action. In the introduction to Judge Palm¬ 
er’s letter it said, in part: 

“Up to this time the press and public have paid little attention to 
the details of the proposed legislation, but have been interested princi¬ 
pally in winning what they believed was a fight to establish a principle 
on which the question of tax reform hinged largely. President Palmer’s 
letter admits the principle, and now will be discussed the details of the 
bill to be enacted into law. The legislature has so far shown itself 
to be conservative, and will doubtless listen to the Milwaukee company's 


134 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


complaint as to the injustice of the Orton bill. The people have been 
fighting for just legislation, not radical legislation in this matter, at 
the very beginning of the work.” 

As has previously been explained, the “people” had not been 
fighting at all. Had they been fighting there would have been 
some evidence of it in the previous campaign. As a matter of fact, 
both parties had called for tax reform legislation in their platforms. 

The Milwaukee Sentinel, at that time maintaining an under¬ 
ground connection with Mr. La Follette and ministering to his 
political comfort whenever possible, opposed the Orton insurance 
tax bill. Like the journal, it believed an increase in the tax of the 
Northwestern Mutual might well be demanded, but it was opposed 
to so material an increase as was proposed by the Orton measure. 
In several editorials printed early in April, 1899, it criticised the 
bill severely as indicating a disposition on the part of its author to 
burden the Northwestern Mutual with an excessive tax. Other 
newspapers throughout the state appeared to be less positive even 
than The Sentinel and Journal. They were in favor of increased 
corporation taxes, believing the first tax commission was correct 
in its opinion that the public service corporations were not paying 
at the same rate that other classes of property was taxed. But in 
no case did they appear to have formed definite opinions as to the 
amount of taxes it would be fair to collect from the insurance com¬ 
panies or any other corporations. 

This tentative position of the public press is explained by the 
fact that the editors did not have sufficient data upon which to 
base an intelligent belief. In this connection, the address delivered 
by Senator Whitehead in support of the tax commission bill when 
it was presented to the senate by his committee is to the point. 
It has not been the practice in this review to make long quotations 
from public documents, but the address in question, delivered at a 
time when the questions—numerous and involved—before the leg¬ 
islature were being considered by men who were later criticised 
because they had not already disposed of them, gives such a vivid 
picture of the real situation that the temptation to reproduce it in 
full is irresistible. The report of the speech is taken from the 
Milwaukee Journal for April 15, 1899. Senator Whitehead said: 

“When the governor’s message came in at this session of the legis¬ 
lature it contained a reference to the tax commission appointed under 
the act of 1897, commending the work of the commission and calling 
the attention of the legislature to the importance of making some pro¬ 
vision for the continuation of the work of that commission. 

“When the message was read the chairman of the judiciary commit¬ 
tee introduced a resolution referring the portions of the governor’s mes¬ 
sage pertaining to matters of taxation to the standing committee on 
assessment and collection of taxes. As the discussion on other important 
tax hills proceeded before the committee, it became more and more 
apparent to the minds of those who composed your standing committee 
that the subject of taxation was one that required more than the passing 
attention which the legislature could give to it, and the recommendation 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


135 


contained in the governor’s message grew in importance in the minds 
of the members of the committee. As soon as the bill could be prepared 
it was introduced, carrying out the recommendation made by the gov¬ 
ernor in his message for the appointment of a commission. 

“There have been forty-two bills in the senate pertaining directly to 
matters of taxation, which would occupy the attention and thought of 
such a commission as this bill contemplates. There were introduced on 
the other side of the hall seventy bills of this character; bills referring 
to the taxation of all kinds of property, and the taxation of all kinds of 
corporations, and I might almost say, by all kinds of methods. Almost 
the whole subject of taxation has been opened up here in this session 
of the legislation by this great number of bills which have been intro¬ 
duced and which have passed or are now passing through the hands of 
the committees. 

“Gentlemen, what is to be the result when this condition is so well 
understood? Both of the political parties in their platforms make ref¬ 
erence to this great subject. They speak sometimes in terms of re¬ 
proach because taxes are so heavy; they speak sometimes in terms of 
condemnation because so much property and so many corporations and 
individuals are escaping taxation altogether. 

“There has been for the last forty years in the legislatures of the 
different states an animated discussion going on, as there has been here, 
with reference to the subject of taxation. Twenty-four different states 
have had their commissions. But the trouble with these tax commis¬ 
sions has been, as it has with the tax commission we have had our¬ 
selves, that the result was merely literature, and I venture to say that 
it lies unopened and unstudied on many of the desks of members of the 
legislature. The recommendation of the governor to this legislature is 
for a tax commission that will do something, and that is the purpose 
of the committee. 

“We have the problems in our state as we find them discussed in the 
tax reports of Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. The results 
of tax commissions and tax investigations have been followed by the 
establishment of permanent departments, and the results to the people 
are satisfactory, because property is brought from its hiding places by 
the millions and the burden of taxation begins to be distributed with 
some sort of equality and with some sort of regard for the ability of 
the taxpayer to pay the taxes. 

“The bill provides, Mr. President, for the appointment of a com¬ 
missioner, for an assistant commissioner, and still another assistant and 
it provides for a term of office of ten years. And it provides salaries 
commensurate with responsibility. We have seen in our committees 
here this last winter men who stood before us as the representatives of 
these great corporations, whose salaries were probably three times the 
salary which this bill provides to be paid to the commissioner. We 
desire a representative of the people when these great questions are 
discussed before the committees of the legislature. We desire a man 
who has made a study of the subject—not that he might write a book, 
but that he might come in and be the right hand of power of the legislature 
when it takes hold of this great burden and attempts to lay it with some 
sort of equal distribution upon the shoulders of those who are to carry it. 

“These men who have appeared before us and discussed these bills 
for the taxation of their corporations, are men of the highest standard 
of ability and intelligence. They are masters of the subjects given to 
their care. We of the legislature, coming from our homes and our places 
of business, know nothing except that taxation is jumbled up, that it is 
patchwork, and that the legislation has been guesswork, and that the 
decisions of the courts lead us into confusion, not because the courts do 
not know the law, but because act follows act in such rapid succession 


136 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


that the law is continually unsettled. Mr. President, if we have a citizen 
of this state intrusted with the responsibility, and to whom is given the 
duty and the opportunity to take hold of this subject with the spirit and 
power which its importance requires, then we shall see in future ses¬ 
sions of the legislature a man on the floor before the committee repre¬ 
senting the cause of this state who knows what he is talking about, and 
who knows also what those who represent these other interests are 
talking about. 

“Mr. President, we are greatly concerned at this moment with the 
great question of taxation involving a great corporate interest in our 
state, and we are anxious to do right. We are anxious to protect the 
interests of the people and we are anxious that no wrong be done to the 
great corporate interest. The discussion has gone on here for days in 
the legislature before the committees and on the floor of the assembly, 
and it is before us now, and for my part I don’t know, and I doubt very 
much whether my fellow senators know, what is right to be done in the 
matter. And it seems to me, Mr. President, that the time has come for 
the legislature of Wisconsin to heed the admonition of the governor. 

“Mr. President, the subject is before us; it is in the minds of the 
legislatures of every state. I don’t know where we shall find a solution 
of it; it will only be found in the mind and in the study and in the 
activity of some man. It will never come by chance. It will work out 
in human experience. It will be worked out only by the patient effort 
of men clothed with authority and responsibility and having in their 
hands the honor and the glory of the state. Mr. President, we don’t 
wish Wisconsin to get the reputation of overtaxing its industries. On 
the contrary, we desire that our state should invite industries because of 
the justice of its tax laws. It is not a question of how much tax we can 
wring from this corporation or that, or from this individual or the other. 
It is a question of a just tax. 

“I think I see, Mr. President, if this commission should be estab¬ 
lished, a directing mind. I think I see these assessors, without experi¬ 
ence and without knowledge of these confused laws which mix un the 
lawyers, without knowledge of these decisions of the courts, I think I 
see these men coming to the commission for a word of advice. I think 
I see these commissioners going up and down the state, into different 
counties, and studying, not a theory of taxation, but a condition of 
taxation. I see these men who represent this great state in contact with 
the citizens, and with those who are levying the taxes and who are 
spending the money after the taxes have been collected. And when these 
men come before the committee of the legislature with that kind of in¬ 
formation, Mr. President, they come with the information which the 
members of the legislature want; the only information that will enable 
them to frame laws that will meet the conditions which exist. We are 
to be students of our own conditions as they are—of those laws which 
stand upon our statute books. 

“We have within our borders the finest opportunities for capital. 
We have within our borders the finest opportunities for energy and in¬ 
telligence. We have a population who have made out of this state a 
state where one might be proud to dwell, and one whose citizenship one 
might be proud to claim. And yet there is this continual complaint, not 
alone in ours but in all the states, of the ill distribution and lack of dis¬ 
tribution of the burden of taxation. The little state of Massachusetts 
spends $30,000 a year on her tax commissioner, and he. with his agents 
and servants, goes into the factories and shops and studies the condi¬ 
tions as he finds them there. He is able to determine from the rate that 
men pay for wages, and the rate that they pay for material, and the 
prices they get for their product, whether these corporations are invest¬ 
ments that pay or whether their investments do not pay, and the taxes of 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


137 


the state are adjusted in an equitable and able manner with the men 
who have their capital invested and who are making the state. And my 
mind reaches forward to time such conditions as that — my mind looks 
forward, under the operation of a law like this, or a better one, when 
the time shall come that the legislature shall frame a better one, to the 
time when order shall come out of confusion, when there will be a 
directing mind; when the resources of the state will be used, not to 
impoverish the people by taxation, but to bring in wealth and capital 
and industry and make our state glorious indeed.” 

But the legislature did not postpone all action until a com¬ 
mission could be appointed. The Orton insurance taxation bill 
passed both houses with but few minor changes and was approved 
by Gov. Scofield. At the session of the legislature held in 1901 
it was found necessary to make certain changes in the law in or¬ 
der to relieve the Northwestern Mutual from the effects of re¬ 
taliatory legislation in other states, but the law is still on the sta¬ 
tute books substantially in the form in which it originally passed, 
and the tax now paid by the Wisconsin company amounts to more 
than $300,000 annually. 

The second Orton bill, was designed to increase the license 
fees paid by the smaller and less important railroads of the state. 
An attempt was made to amend the bill by A. B. Hall, which 
failed, and then Judge Orton himself proposed to amend the 
measure by increasing the license fee to be paid by railroads of 
the first class to 5 per cent of their gross receipts, which amend¬ 
ment carried in the assembly. The bill was subsequently defeat¬ 
ed in the senate, of which more will be said under the proper 
heading. 

The recommendation of the tax commission that a tax on 
inheritance be levied by law was adopted, and chapter 355, laws 
of 1899, “An act for a tax on gifts, inheritances, bequests and 
legacies in certain cases,” was passed. This law was later de¬ 
clared unconstitutional by the Supreme court and all taxes col¬ 
lected under it were returned. 


138 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER VIII. 

A. R. Hall and Railroad Taxation. 

While Assemblyman A. R. Hall, of Dunn county was not the 
first to propose an increase in the amount of taxes collected from 
the railway companies, there can be no questioning the truth of 
the statement that he was the most persistent and uncompromis¬ 
ing advocate of that proposition in the state during the years im¬ 
mediately preceding the adoption of the ad valorem system of 
taxation by the legislature in 1903. It is true that Mr. Hall did 
not himself advocate the ad valorem system, but he did, in ad¬ 
dresses delivered in the assembly and in communications to the 
press, present an estimate of the actual value of railroad proper¬ 
ties as a basis or justification of his proposed increase in the 
percentage to be paid as a license fee, as follows: 

1. Six per cent of the gross earnings of all roads whose 
gross earnings exceed $5,000 a mile yearly. 

2. Five and a half per cent of the gross earnings of all roads 
whose gross earnings exceed $4,500 a mile. 

3. Five per cent of the gross earnings of all roads whose 
earnings equal or exceed $4,000 a mile. 

4. Four and a half per cent of the gross earnings of all other 
roads. 

Mr. Hall began his campaign for increased rates of railroad 
taxation early in his legislative career, but he was handicapped. 
It was his misfortune to cause the impression to be spread abroad 
that he was an enemy of the transportation companies and that 
it was his purpose to harass the objects of his displeasure in every 
possible way. He began his campaign for investigation when he 
first went to Madison in 1891 as the member from Dunn county. 
Having served a‘number of years in the Minnesota legislature 
and three terms as speaker of the Minnesota assembly, he was not 
obliged to wait until he had “learned the ropes” before taking up 
his self appointed task. It is not necessary to go into the full de¬ 
tails as to the war waged by Mr. Hall on the railroads, and it is 
merely mentioned here as an explanation of the reputation as a 
railroad baiter which attached to him at the beginning of his 
legislative career in Wisconsin and stuck to him until the end. 

An event which probably added weight to the belief that Mr. 
Hall was merely “making trouble” for the transportation com¬ 
panies was the outcome of an investigation caused by his own mo¬ 
tion in 1893. He introduced a resolution in the assembly (re¬ 
solution No. 30A), in which it was explained that the reports 
made of gross earnings bv the two principal railroads doing busi¬ 
ness in Wisconsin were manifestlv incorrect and that the state 
was thus being defrauded of large sums annually in license fees. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


189 


His belief was based on the alleged fact that the reports of earn¬ 
ings to the officers of this state did not agree with certain reports 
made to other states. 

A committee was appointed and an investigation made. Mr. 
Hall being chairman of the committee. Two reports were made 
to the legislature, one signed by E. A. Edmonds and the other 
by Mr. Hall. Mr. Edmonds reported that he and the third mem¬ 
ber of the committee, whose name is not given, called at the offices 
of the railroad companies under investigation and examined their 
books. The report covers five pages of the assembly journal and 
professes to give a complete explanation of the discrepancy dis¬ 
covered by Mr. Hall, which was caused by the fact that certain 
states to which reports were made were not taxing railroads on 
the basis of earnings and the reports were therefore merely form¬ 
al, approximate statements. The majority report concludes with 
these words: 

“From the examination made by your committee, and from all the 
information which they have received, they are satisfied that correct and 
honest reports have been made by the various railroad companies operat¬ 
ing lines within this state, to the state, of the actual earnings of each 
of said roads.” 

Mr. Hall handed in a minority report. He did not claim to 
have made an examination of the books of the companies. He 
merely compiled a number of statistical tables, gathering Ids fig¬ 
ures from different sources, in an attempt to prove what could 
only be proved from the books of the companies indicted by him 
on a charge of fraud. It is not surprising that the legislature 
did not take his report seriously; it is not surprising that Mr. 
HalFs so-called anti-railroad crusade was not materially advanced 
by this failure to “make good” when the opportunity was given 
him. When he came back in 1895, 1897, and 1899, still insist¬ 
ing that the roads w r ere defrauding the state by false reports, or 
that the license fee exacted of them should be increased, there 
was a manifest disposition to treat his figures and elaborately pre¬ 
pared statistics with a skepticism that had its origin in the in¬ 
vestigation of 1893. 

But the failure to take seriously the statistics and computa¬ 
tions of Mr. Hall did not mean that the people of the state, or any 
considerable number of them, were entirely satisfied with the 
method of collecting taxes from the transportation companies 
or the amount of such taxes paid into the state treasury. There 
always had been opposition to the license fee system of taxing 
railroads. As has been said, State Senators F. W. von Cotzhausen 
and J. V. Quarles, the former in 1873- ? 74 and the latter in 1881, 
had proposed a return to the ad valorem system of taxing that 
class of corporation. Both of these members of the legislature had 
urged strong reasons for the proposed change and Senator von 
Cotzhausen in particular had urged that notwithstanding the 


140 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


famous decision of the Supreme court in 1862, when two of the 
members of the court wrote opinions that the license fee system 
was in violation of the uniformity clause of the constitution, but 
declined to disturb a former decision of the same court because a 
reversal would bring disaster upon the business interests of the 
state—the time had come to return to the constitutional rule of 
uniformity and an ad valorem assessment of railroad property. 

But the license fee system had been adopted in the first place 
because it was simple and easy of application. The old method 
of permitting local assessing officers to put a valuation on railroad 
property in their districts had proved to be impossible of success¬ 
ful operation even when there were but a few miles of railroad in 
the state. It was hoped when the license fee plan was adopted 
that a solution of the problem had been reached, although the 
amount collected by the state was but 1 per cent on the gross earn¬ 
ings of the companies. This fee was increased, however, to 3 per 
cent in 1862, 4 per cent in 1874, and in 1876 the roads were 
classified, the smaller roads being taxed a smaller per cent, the 
amount being determined by their earnings per mile. 

Other states had experimented with railroad taxation plans 
of almost every conceivable character, yet none of them had suc¬ 
ceeded in finding a plan that was entirely satisfactory. Tax 
commissions had investigated the subject and reported; econom¬ 
ists had published opinions at considerable length which con¬ 
tained no satisfactory conclusion; pamphlets were written and 
'printed, newspaper discussion in nearly all of the states had at¬ 
tempted to throw light on the subject, and yet the question was, 
not settled. In 1888 Prof. Richard T. Ely, then a member of the 
Johns Hopkins university faculty, now with the University of 
Wisconsin, published the results of an investigation made by him¬ 
self of this subject in which he expressed the opinion that the Wis¬ 
consin plan was the best that had so far been devised to dispose 
of the question of railroad taxation. He gave as his reasons for 
expressing this belief that the plan was simple, inexpensive in 
operation, and that the amount raised by this method was so im¬ 
portant an item in the income of the state that it had not been 
found necessary to levy a state tax for general purposes for a num¬ 
ber of years. 

No confidence is violated when it is said that the railroad com¬ 
panies themselves were not entirely free from concern on this 
subject. It was the business of the officers of those companies to 
look after the interests of their stockholders and the frequent ex¬ 
pressions of opinion on the part of public men and writters that 
the transportation companies were not paying their just propor¬ 
tion of the tax burdens, coupled with the repeated attempts to 
raise the license fee, led those officers to believe that, after all, the 
license fee might not be the best method of taxing their proper- 


141 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 

ty, notwithstanding its simplicity and the ease with which they 
could comply with it. No one could tell where the legislature 
would stop once it broke the ice and began to raise the percentage 
paid by the railroads on their gross earnings in lieu of taxes. 

This was the situation when the first tax commission report¬ 
ed to the legislature of 1899 that their investigations had led 
them “to the conclusion that all corporations which are taxed on 
the basis of earnings or on a mileage basis pay relatively less 
taxes than other persons and less than they would pay on the 
basis of value.” 


142 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER IX. 

Gov. Scofield’s Warning. 

Gov. Scofield, under whose administration the work of fram¬ 
ing new laws began, naturally took a lively interest in the de¬ 
tails of that work. As has been shown from the records, he was 
intensely interested in the enactment of statutes providing for 
the taxation of car companies and freight line companies. His 
communications to the press on the subject of public revenues and 
expenditures created an interest that had not been felt before on 
the part of taxpayers. His frequently published interviews kept 
that interest alive. His address at the Janesville farmers’ institute 
in 1898, reported in full in The Sentinel of March 10, in which 
reference is made to Gen. Benjamin Harrison’s address delivered in 
Chicago on Washington’s birthday the preceding month, contrib¬ 
uted to spread abroad a knowledge of the facts with respect to the 
state’s financial condition. 

But Gov. Scofield saw a danger in this movement that no one 
but him at that time appeared to apprehend. In his Janesville 
address he spoke at length on the inequalities” in taxation that 
resulted from our loose and illogical system of assessments. 
He explained how large amounts of intangible personal property 
escaped taxation altogether, and how the burden of defraying the 
expenses of government, local and state had in the past fallen 
upon property that easily could be reached. That this was an in¬ 
justice to certain classes of taxpayers he did not believe any rea¬ 
sonable man would attempt to deny; that the work should be car¬ 
ried forward with vigor he believed was necessary. To this end he 
had favored the creating of a tax commission, and he hoped the 
next legislature would so act that the work of that body, or a 
similiar one, could be still further advanced. 

In 1900, however, after the permanent tax commission had 
been created and provision had been made for paying its expenses, 
Gov. Scofield, who had kept his eyes keenly upon the move¬ 
ment, detected what he believed to be a danger. This belief is 
best expressed in his own words, taken from a Sentinel report 
of an address delivered by the governor at Dele van before a far¬ 
mers’ institute on March 14, 1900. Here is what he said. 

“Upon this subject of taxation I desire to say a word at this time. 
It is one that has deeply interested me ever since I became a public 
official, and one toward which no intelligent man may be indifferent 
I see in the general agitation upon this subject this danger: That the 
tendency of legislation and of public sentiment seems to be to increase 
the public revenues. I desire to say to you now that when there is col¬ 
lected from the public one dollar more than is necessary to carry on the 
legitimate functions of government, there is danger of extravagance, and, 
ultimately, worse than extravagance. Fortunately we have not had this 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


143 


t 


condition to meet. I speak of it because there is shown a disposition in 
various ways to largely increase the income of the state. 

“In a state as prosperous as ours taxes are not really burdensome 
when we compare our conditions with those of many other states. The 
ill feeling concerning taxes grows out of the belief that there is a 
marked inequality in distributing the burdens. There is a general im¬ 
pression that certain properties are not paying their just share of taxa¬ 
tion. The legislature recognized this sentiment when it created a tax 
commission to look into the matter and present to it the facts bearing 
on the situation. That commission is now at work and when it presents 
its report and recommendations, I am satisfied that it will be made clear 
whether any-property or properties are being overburdened, and whether 
others are shirking their proper duties and responsibilities. If the latter 
proves to he the case and laics he enacted to remedy the evil , it should 
not result merely'in additional demand being made upon the properties 
that have failed to pay their share; hut an equilibrium should be estab¬ 
lished by reducing proportionately the amount now paid by those that 
are overburdened .” 

This is the only instance found where public expression was 
given to the possibility of unnecessarily increasing the revenues of 
the state. There had always been a tacit understanding that 
should increased revenues result from the assessment of proper¬ 
ty that previously had escaped taxation and from increased taxes 
to be collected from corporations, the classes of property that had 
been paying more than their just share would be benefited there¬ 
by. In other words, an increase in one place would be offset by a 
corresponding reduction in another. That is what taxation re¬ 
form was supposed to mean, if it meant anything. 

It was understood, of course, that the necessary expenses of 
the state were increasing from year to year. The charitable and 
penal institutions were calling for additional funds each year. 
Recently the home for feeble minded had been built at Chippewa 
Falls and the reformatory prison at Green Bay was then under 
construction. The state university was enlarging the scope of 
its operations and new buildings and grounds were to be ac¬ 
quired. All these expenses must be provided for and it was rea¬ 
sonable to suppose the state would be called upon to increase its 
revenues in order to meet the demands upon the treasury. 

In 1889 the total disbursements of the state amounted io 
$2,574„227.76; in 1899 they had grown to $3,884,339.46, an in¬ 
crease of $1,310,111.70. During the same years the license fees col¬ 
lected from all companies that paid a percentage of their gross earn¬ 
ings in lieu of taxes increased from $1,060,560.05 to $1,711,387.60, 
a gain of $650,827.55. But the addition to the license fees 
collected was only about one-half of the increase in the state’s dis¬ 
bursements. 

As it was only to these companies that the state could look 
for additional revenue except by direct taxation, and as it was 
for an increase in the license fees collected from corporations that 
the men at the head of the taxation reform movement were con¬ 
tending—at least they demanded an investigation as to the suf- 


144 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 




ficiency of the contributions from these corporations to the state’s 
income—there was, in the governor's opinion, a probability that 
the fees collected from this source might outrun the legitimate 
expenses of the government. In an elaborate argument made in 
the assembly when the proposed increase in the railroad license 
fees was under consideration, Mr. Hall had given his estimate 
of a fair valuation and tax on those corporations. He had shown 
how, in his opinion, if the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul and 
Chicago and North-Western railroads alone paid their fair share 
of the expenses of the state in 1898, they would have paid $617,- 
477.57 more than they actually did pay. As the annual increase 
in expenses during the ten preceding years had averaged but $113,- 
435.47, and as steps already had been taken to increase the taxes 
of all classes of public service corporations with the exception of 
railroads, it did not require that a man be endowed with the 
gift of prophecy to clearly see that the average increase in the 
revenues would outrun the average increase in the expenses if 
the affairs of the state were to be administered in the future as in 
the past. 

As a matter of fact, the increase in corporation taxes has been 
so material that there is now collected from that source alone 
more than the entire disbursements of the state amounted to in 
1898. In the latter year, according to statements printed in the 
report of the tax commission for 1907, the total disbursements 
for all purposes, inclusive of the trust fund incomes and funds 
raised by the tax for the educational institutions, amounted to 
$3,708,582.50, while the corporation taxes in 1908 amounted to 
$3,992,530.07, as follows: 

License fees and taxes: 


Railroad companies ...$3,265,676.73 

Street railway and electric light companies. 22,207.31 

Express companies.,. 9,344.39 

Sleeping car companies . 5,343.28 

Freight line and equipment companies. 3,315.54 

Telegraph companies . 45,207.45 

Telephone companies . 36,628.89 

Bhre insurance companies . 174,225.52 

Life insurance companies . 392,843.14 

Accident, surety, etc., companies. 27,396.20 

Boom and improvement companies . 252.85 

Plank road companies . 173.39 

Loan and trust companies .. 9,915.38 


Total .$3,992,530.07 

It was in view of this probable increase now actual, that Gov. 
Scofield* in 1900, warned the people of the state that provision 
should be made to lighten the burden of taxation on all overtaxed 
property whenever it was found that the tax on another class of 
property justly could be advanced, 

















Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


145 


In order to provide a way to handle the appropriations of 
public money intelligently Gov. Scofield, in 1899, proposed that 
the legislature provide for the regular filing, at the opening of 
each legislative session, of a budget explaining the needs of the sev¬ 
eral departments of the state government for the coming bien¬ 
nial term. He prepared and presented such a budget and it 
proved of material value to the members of the legislature, par¬ 
ticularly the committee on claims. Xo budget has since been pre¬ 
sented to a legislature. That was one of the practical reforms 
that was ignored during the violent outbreak of theoretical reform 
that followed. It was too practical and businesslike in character 
to appeal to Gov. Scofield's successor. 

It was to further perfect the business system of the state that 
Gov. Scofield, at the same term of the legislature, in the same 
message, asked for authority to provide for the state a central sys¬ 
tem of accoimting to the end that the financial condition of the 
state might be at all times clear and understandable, and that the 
funds of the state might be fully safeguarded. The legislature 
granted the request ; experts were employed who worked months 
upon the books and finally perfected a central system of book¬ 
keeping and proper checks by which the state's money, a large 
part of which is collected from many sources and passed through 
the hands of hundreds of men, could be traced. 

This system of accounting was examined by a committee of 
the legislature and approved. A law was enacted ordering it put 
into effect by the governor. Unfortunately the executive was giv¬ 
en some little discretion in the matter and Gov. La Follette de¬ 
cided that it was “not necessary” to put the entire system in force. 
This was another reform that ‘failed at the beginning of a reform 

period. 


146 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER X. 

The Tax Commission’s Report in 1901. 

The subject of taxation came before the legislative session of 
1901 in the form of a report from the tax commission, supple¬ 
mented by a section of Gov. La Follette’s message. For weeks 
there had been in circulation a rumor, based on little tangible 
evidence it is true, that the new executive “had it in for” the 
tax commission and that his message would prove to be a “bomb” 
for that body. 

The tax commission, originally composed of Gen. Michael 
Griffin of Eau Claire, Judge Norman S. Gilson of Fond du Lac, 
and George Curtis, Jr., of Merrill, had been changed by the death 
of Gen. Griffin before the end of the first year of its work and just 
as the commissioners were getting their material in shape for 
study. Judge Gilson succeeded Gen. Griffin as the head of the 
commission and the vacancy was filled by Gov. Scofield’s appoint¬ 
ment of William A. Anderson to a place on the commission. Mr. 
Anderson’s term expired during the winter of 1901 and he was 
supplanted by Nils P. Haugen. 

But one of these gentlemen had served on the original tax com¬ 
mission, George Curtis, Jr. Gen. Griffin and Judge Gilson were 
men of eminence in their profession and had served the state ably 
in public office, the former as a member of the state legislature 
and representative in congress, the latter on the Circuit bench. 
Mr. Anderson had been engaged in newspaper work until appoint¬ 
ed private secretary to Gov. Scofield in 1897. Mr. Curtis was a 
lawyer who had enjoyed exceptional opportunities of becoming 
acquainted with the tax laws by residing and practicing law in 
a territory that was fruitful of tax litigation. 

The first year of the tax commission’s experience was spent 
almost entirely in study. The questions confronting them were 
many and the problem as a whole was a big and complicated one. 
In so far as it was able, the first tax commission had made an ex¬ 
cellent start and furnished considerable valuable data, but the 
new commission found it necessary to go deeper and discover, if 
possible, what other states had accomplished results in the way 
of taxation reform and how far the experiences in other states 
would be of value to Wisconsin. 

The first year’s preliminary work had only been completed 
and the work of classifying the information secured and digesting 
the facts begun when it became necessary to prepare a report for 
the opening of the coming session of the legislature, as required 
by the law creating the commission. It was explained in the let¬ 
ter of transmittal that the report was incomplete. The com¬ 
missioners said: 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


147 


“We regret that this part of the work may appear somewhat frag¬ 
mentary, unaccompanied by the data upon which the discussions and 
conclusions are based, but this will be remedied by the publication later 
of the complete report comprising the detail of all the work done since 
the organization of the commission.” 

The report contained an account of hearings held before the 
commission in which the question of taxing corporations was 
gone into at considerable length. An effort had been made to se¬ 
cure a reasonably accurate valuation of all the taxable property 
of the state, personal and real, as well as to put a value on the prop¬ 
erty of the railroads and other public service corporations. Not¬ 
withstanding the apology of the commission for the incompleteness 
of its published report, the document was a valuable one and was of 
great use to the legislature. It would have been of greater service 
had it not been for political developments during the winter. 

In conclusion the tax commission made certain recommenda¬ 
tions. It was not prepared to suggest that the license fee system 
of taxing railroads be abandoned but it had gone deep enough 
into the subject to feel justified in confirming the statement made 
by the first commission to the effect that the railroad corporations 
were not bearing their full share of the public burdens. In this con¬ 
nection they recommended: 

“That the license fee system of collecting taxes from certain cor¬ 
porations be maintained, at least until it be given a test under conditions 
that will make the returns received from it more nearly equal to what 
would be collected from the same properties on an ad valorem basis. 

“That the annual license fee to be paid by the railroads in lieu of all 
other taxes shall be a percentage of the annual gross earnings graded 
from a minimum of 3 per cent to a maximum of 5% per cent—the grad¬ 
uation and classification to be as follows: 

“Three per cent of the gross earnings of all railroads whose gross 
earnings do not exceed $2,000 per mile; the rate thereafter to be in¬ 
creased from the minimum of 3 per cent by adding thereto .1 per cent for 
each $100 of gross earnings per mile until the gross earnings per mile 
shall equal $4,500 and the maximum rate of 5 Vo per cent is reached; and 
5 y 2 per cent of the gross earnings of all the railroads whose gross earn¬ 
ings per mile are $4,500 and over. The railroads whose gross earnings 
are equal to $3,000 per mile will pay 4 per cent, $4,000 per mile. 5 per 
cent, $4,500 per mile or over. 5*4 per cent. 

“The railroads in 1900 on the earnings of 1S99 paid the sum of 
$1,546,720.68, on gross earnings of $39,487,403.67. The above classifica¬ 
tion on the per cent of the gross earnings if applied to the gross earnings 
in 1899 will give a revenue approximately $2,150,000.” 

The commission also made recommendations concerning other 
public service corporations and it proposed that the evil of un¬ 
dervaluation be abolished by requiring that all property be assessed 
at its actual market value. A number of tables were printed 
in the report illustrating how widely the assessed valuation of pro¬ 
perty varied from the actual value, as well as showing the total 
estimated value of real and personal property and the estimated 
value of all the railroads doing business in this state. 


I 


148 Political Reform in Wisconsin. 

CHAPTER XI. 

Gov. La Follette Enters. 

At this point Gov. Robert M. La Follette enters upon the stage 
and takes a position of advantage in the center, with the spot light 
shining upon him. As had been intimated before, up to this time 
he had made no record as a taxation reformer. There is not one 
line in any of his published addresses that would quicken the spirit 
or enlighten the mind of any student of the subject. So far as 
taxation was concerned, there was neither inspiration nor informa¬ 
tion to be found in the La Follette literature. 

The governor’s message was a long one. Possibly that fact 
might be left to be understood, as all of Gov. La Follette’s mes¬ 
sages and public documents are, or were, long. It was—also like 
all of his messages and public documents—carefully prepared and 
full of interest. His bitterest enemy will never accuse him of being 
dull. A large part of the message was devoted to the subject of 
taxation and fully one-half of that large part was devoted to sug¬ 
gestions of changes in the law creating the tax commission. 

In the first place, the governor gave his approval to the general 
plan of preparing for a revision of the system by a thorough inves¬ 
tigation of the subject by a commission. He regretted the death of 
Gen. Griffin as an event that had tended to delay the work of the 
commission, and he also regretted that the commission would not 
be able to propose a “complete plan of revision of the tax laws.” 
But he was confident the members of that bodv would be able 

4/ 

to render important services to the legislature in their efforts to 
enact such laws as were immediately necessary in order to correct 
evils in some directions. He did not counsel haste. It was impor¬ 
tant that time be taken to go into the subject thoroughly. He was 
of the opinion that it might require another biennial period in 
order to complete in a satisfactory manner recommendations for a 
revision of the tax laws. 

It was Gov. La Follette’s desire, however, that no time be lost in 
shifting the burden of unjust taxation from the shoulders of those 
who had borne it too long by placing that burden where it right¬ 
fully belonged—upon those who previously had escaped taxation in 
whole or in part. He said: 

“But, thotlgh it may require another biennial period to perfect and 
complete this work of the commission, the fact should, under no circum¬ 
stances, be made the excuse or justification for delaying such corrections 
of manifest inequalities as it is possible for the present legislature to 
effect.' Indeed, the great task of the commission in constructing a com¬ 
plete system may be aided by remedying every defect possible in the 
existing law, either by amendment or independent act at thir session, 
thus advancing along the line of revisio* and testing results wherever 
possible. In the meantime, the excess of burden which has so long rested 
upon certain classes of our citizens would be transferred to those who 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


149 


have carried less than a proportionate share in the past. Every act of 
government should be fair and just, and no portion of the system which 
allows certain classes of property to escape taxation, whollv or in part, 
should be permitted to stand upon the statutes.” 

Later in the message it became apparent that the governor was 
aiming at owners of personal property, mortgages, stocks, bonds, 
and moneys, when he referred to classes of property, that, wholly 
or in part, escaped taxation, for he says: 

“That the law with respect to the assessment of all property can be 
so amended, supervised and enforced as to secure uniformity of assess¬ 
ment and enormously increase the tax upon property which now escapes 
wholly or in part, there is not the slightest reason to doubt. With neigh¬ 
boring states adding $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 to the assessed valua¬ 
tion of personal property in a short twelve months, we shall be derelict 
in our duty indeed, if we fail to strengthen the law wherever it is weak, 
and provide for its vigorous enforcement.” 

One more quotation is necessary in order that Gov. La Follette’s 
position on this question may be understood. This was in effect his 
first definite statement of principles so far as relates to the taxa¬ 
tion question. He was, as required by the constitution, laying be¬ 
fore the legislature facts in his possession relating to the matter 
under consideration and giving formal and official utterances to his 
opinions, deliberately formed and clearly expressed. 

As a basis upon which to rely in forming his opinions, Mr. La 
Follette had requested the commissioner of labor and industrial 
statistics to prepare tables showing the total value of all property 
in the state and the estimate of the percentage of property in each 
class that escaped assessment and taxation. It may be said here 
that the tax commission had prepared similar tables and that they 
did not agree with those found in the governor’s message, but the 
difference was not so radical as to create controversy or justify ex¬ 
tended arguments. The main point on which both authorities 
agreed was that the percentage of real property assessed was high, 
that railroad property came next in the scale, and personal property 
cut a sorry figure in the percentage column. With respect to the 
taxation of corporations, after commenting briefly on the figures, 
Gov. La Follette said: 

“One of the questions you will have to determine in dealing with this 
subject is whether railway companies shall be taxed directly by assess¬ 
ment upon the value of their property, or whether they shall continue to 
pay under the license system a certain percentage upon their gross earn¬ 
ings. The strong objection to a license fee upon gross earnings is that 
it allows the corporation to make its own report of the amount of its 
gross earnings, or, in other words, to assess itself. It is but just to note 
in this connection that, as appears by the above tables , the railway 
companies have been fairer than the average of individuals, who, as to 
the great mass of personal property, assess themselves, the pet cottage 
of assessed to market value of the railways being 20 5-100 as against 
12 9-100 for all other personal property in 1899 . In no case, however, 
should the assessment be left to the taxpayer, whether corporation or in¬ 
dividual, without some check or safeguard for the state. Il the railway 


150 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


companies are to be taxed directly by assessment upon the value of their 
property, then I have no hesitation in saying that the assessment should 
be made by a state board of the highest possible character and ability. 
If the present system of a license fee, lixed at a certain rate per cent 
upon the gross earnings, is to be continued, then I recommend that there 
be reposed in some representative of the state, either the tax commission 
or board of assessment, authority to increase the amount of gross earn¬ 
ings reported by any railway company to such sum as will, in the judg¬ 
ment of the commission or board of assessment, render the amount just 
and equitable as representing the actual gross earnings of the com¬ 
pany reporting the same; that such be taken as prirna facie evidence of 
the actual gross earnings of such railroad company; but that any 
railway company considering itself aggrieved by the sum so fixed as 
gross earnings may appear before such commission or board of assess¬ 
ment and be fully heard and produce witnesses and evidence in their 
behalf in respect thereto. The final determination of the commission or 
board should in some form be subject to the supervision of the courts.” 

This is a fair outline of the opinions and recommendations of 
Gov. La Follette in his first message to the legislature, so far as tax 
legislation is concerned. There were some suggestions as to changes 
in the law creating the tax commission, some of which were wise and 
some foolish, like the twelve virgins. For instance, he proposed to 
give the commission power to supervise assessments and enforce the 
assessment laws; to limit the amount of expenditures that could be 
incurred by the commission; to require the commission to report di¬ 
rectly to the executive instead of to the legislature. These were all 
wise suggestions and they were heeded by the legislature. On the 
other hand, he proposed to take from the commission the power and 
opportunity to make investigations requiring statistical work and to 
transfer all such work to the bureau of statistics, another department 
of the state government. He also expressed the belief that the com¬ 
mission could complete its investigations in two years and that it 
should be prepared at the end of the next biennial period to report a 
complete system of tax laws that would work satisfactorily. Com¬ 
ments on these suggestions were superfluous. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


151 


CHAPTER XII. 


Attempts at Legislation. 

As has been explained in a former chapter on primary elections, 
there was a profound peace in Wisconsin political circles at the time 
the legislature convened in 1901. There also was every reason to 
believe substantial progress would be made in taxation legislation 
along lines suggested by the tax commission. That body had recom¬ 
mended ‘’that the license fee system of collecting taxes from certain 
corporations be maintained, at least until it be given a test under 
conditions that will make the returns received from it more equal to 
what would be collected from the same properties on an ad valorem 
basis,” and, as has been shown, it presented a plan of license fee 
taxation that would increase the amount collected from all classes of 
railroads. 

Gov. La Follette had shown by his tables that the railroad com¬ 
panies were not paying taxes at the same rate as real property, but 
he laid great stress upon the fact that it was personal property that 
was escaping its just share of taxation. 

The result of conferences between the tax commission and lead¬ 
ers in the legislature was that two bills were prepared by the com¬ 
mission, one increasing the rate of taxation under the license fee 
system as recommended by the commission in its report; the other 
providing for an ad valorem assessment of all railroad property for 
the purposes of taxation. These bills were introduced in both houses 
by the respective committees on assessment and collection of taxes, 
made up of the following members: 

Senators Whitehead, (chairman), Riordan, Wolff, Green, and 
Mills. 

Assemblymen Hall, Stevens, Frost, Zinn, Brunson, Lane, and 
McCabe. 

These bills were introduced in the two houses on the same day, 
Jan. 30, and were numbered 94 and 95 on the senate files, and 164 
and 165 on the assembly files. They were referred to the committee 
on assessment and collection of taxes in each house. 

There were also introduced and referred to the committee on 
assessment and collection of taxes, the bills being introduced by that 
committee, the following senate bills: 

No. 215, a bill for the taxation of sleeping car companies and to 
repeal chapter 112 of the laws of 1899. 

No. 216, a bill for the taxation of the property of express com¬ 
panies in the state and to repeal chapter 111 of the laws of 1899. 

No. 217, a bill to provide for the taxation of equipment com¬ 
panies and to repeal chapter 114 of the laws of 1899. 

No. 218, a bill to provide for the taxation of the property of 
freight line companies and to repeal chapter 113 of the lav s of 1899. 

No. 219, a bill providing for the taxation of the property of tele- 


152 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


graph companies and to repeal sections 1216, 1217, 1218, and subdi¬ 
vision 15 of section 1038 of the statutes of 1898- 

No. 234, a bill relating to license fees for telephone companies 
and to repeal section 1222 of the statutes of 1898. 

No. 235, a bill providing for license fees to be paid by street rail¬ 
way companies and to repeal sections 1222, 1222d, 1222e and 1222f 
of the statutes of 1898 and chapter 354 of the laws of 1899. 

All of these bills, it should be remembered, were introduced in 
the senate by the committee on assessment and collection of taxes 
and that committee thereby became sponsors for the measures. Five 
of the bills were drawn to comply with the recommendations of the 
tax commission and the others were in harmony with the general 
plan proposed by that body. The bills were, in fact, drawn by the 
tax commissioners themselves in consultation with the members of 
the committee. Senators Whitehead, Riordan, Wolf, Green, and 
Mills. 

In addition to the two railway taxation bills there also were 
introduced in the assembly by the committee, duplicates of four 
of the senate bills, those providing for the taxation of telegraph, 
freight line, equipment, and street railway companies. „ 

Another important measure, introduced by Assemblyman Frost 
of Portage county, was No. 284A, “A bill to amend chapter 48 of 
the Wisconsin statutes of 1898, relating to the taxation of mort¬ 
gaged real estate/’ The controversy that grew out of the govern¬ 
or’s veto of this bill later was a spirited one, as the measure was 
popular in both houses. The principle involved in the measure was 
undoubtedly correct, a fact that since has been demonstrated, but 
Gov. La Follette objected to both the principle and the form. One 
defect pointed out in the veto message was a serious one, and it is 
doubtful if the courts would have upheld the law had the governor 
spared it when it came before him. But this is not the place to 
consider the merits of the controversy over the Frost mortgage 
taxation bill, as it came to be called. 

Naturally, the companies that would be affected by the passage 
of these bills gathered in Madison to oppose them. There never 
was a time or a place when taxpayers did not object to any plan 
that had for its object an increase in their taxes. There have been 
isolated cases of individuals voluntarily increasing their assessment, 
but the rule is that taxpayers prefer to see “the other fellows”’ 
taxes raised. 

When hearings were held before the joint committee on assess¬ 
ment and collection of taxes the interested corporations appeared 
by attorney or representatives of some kind and entered their ob¬ 
jections. The most conspicuous of these representatives, as a mat¬ 
ter of course, were those who were there to protect the interests of 
the railroad companies. Not only the regular legislative repre¬ 
sentatives of the roads appeared before the committee, but the at¬ 
torneys from the legal department of caeh road considered the sub- 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


153 


ject of enough importance to call for their personal attendance for 
the purpose of making arguments. 

The most strenuous opposition on the part of the railroads was 
brought out to defeat the bill providing for an increase in the per¬ 
centage rate then being paid, which would have raised the rate on 
the gross income of the first class roads from 4 to 5.5 per cent. It 
should be remembered that 1901 was a boom year, following on the 
heels of three previous boom years and likely to be followed bv 
others of a similar character. The transportation lines were doing 
a large business, the capacity of their equipment being taxed to 
care for the products of the farms, mines and factories of the 
country. There had been an increase in the license fees paid to the 
state in 1899 over those of 1898 of $112,763.11; in 1900 over 1899, 
$187,021.50; in 1901 over 1900, $53,238.15. 

There was reason to believe this increase would continue from 
year to year because of the development of the country’s resources 
and the additional tonnage the transportation lines would be called 
upon to handle. It was even believed by the officers of the com¬ 
panies that, at a 4 per cent rate on their gross earnings, they would 
soon be paying more taxes than any other class of property. This 
being their understanding of the situation it is not surprising that 
they made a strenuous fight against the proposition to raise the 
rate to 5.5 per cent, an increase of 37.5 per cent over the rate pre¬ 
viously paid. 

Furthermore, the railroad representatives argued that, by the 
showing made by the tax commission, they were then paying a much 
higher rate of taxes than the owners of personal property, which 
class of property was escaping taxation annually to the value of 
hundreds of millions of dollars. As confirmation of then* position 
on this point the railroad representatives quoted from Gov. La Fol- 
lette’s message; printing in their briefs the table found in that im¬ 
portant state paper and copying in large type the governor’s state¬ 
ment : "It is but just to note, in this connection, that, as appears by 
the above tables, the railway companies have been fairer than the 
average individuals, who, as to the great mass of personal property, 
assess themselves; the percentage of assessed to market value of 
the railways being 20 5-100 as against 12 9-100 for all other personal 
property in 1899.” 

The hearings before the committees were numerous and the 
controversy was warmly fought out, the contending parties being 
the tax commission on the one side and the corporations on the 
other. That the members of the two committees were inclined to 
favor the bills goes without saying. Had they not been in favor 
of legislation of this character they would not have been instru¬ 
mental in preparing the bills, or having them prepared, and intro¬ 
ducing them in the two houses of the legislature. 

During all this time Gov. R. M. La Follette held his peace with 
respect to the two pending railway taxation bills. No record was 





154 Political Reform in Wisconsin. 

made of his conferences with his friends and lieutenants and it is 

impossible, therefore, to furnish documentary evidence of his po¬ 
sition on the subject during the weeks of contest before the com¬ 
mittees. It was publicly known that the railway representatives 
were using the governor’s message to the discredit of the bills, but. 
no protest ever came from the executive chamber against such prac¬ 
tices; no apology for or explanation of the quoted passages w r as ever 
vouchsafed the committee or the public; no aid or counsel was ever 
given to the members of the committee or the tax commission in 
their efforts to solve this perplexing problem, although a personal 
invitation to take part in the consideration of the measures was 
conveyed to the governor by the chairman of the senate committee, 
Senator Whitehead. So far as taxation legislation was concerned, a 
deep and impenetrable silence brooded over the executive chamber. 

Meanwhile the tension caused by the campaign for and against 
the primary election bill was becoming painful. The harmony that 
prevailed at the opening of the session was strained almost to a 
breaking point, the overshadowing importance of that administra¬ 
tive measure casting all other legislative problems into the shade. 
Where there had been, in the beginning, great interest manifested 
in the work of the committee on assessment and collection of taxes, 
there now developed a subject of public interest of, apparently, para¬ 
mount importance—the primary election bill. This bill was made 
the test of allegiance to the administration. The signals, passwords, 
grips, hailing and distress signs of the new secret political society 
all had reference to the primary election bill and no other. The 
forces of the administration were lined up and drilled with the sole 
view of securing the passage of that bill. 

This may explain the failure of Gov. La Follette to come to the 
support of the members of the committees and the tax commission 
in their fight for increased corporation taxation. In the absence of 
a better explanation it is fair to assume that the executive was 
staking all on the primary election bill and permitting other im¬ 
portant measures to take care of themselves; that he was willing 
to have his own message used to defeat taxation bills provided he 
could secure the passage of his pet measure. 

At all events, the assembly committee came in on April 17 with 
a dividend report on bill No. 165A, the one providing for an in¬ 
crease in the rate of taxation on railroad gross earnings. Messrs. 
Zinn, Brunson, Lane and McCabe recommended the bill for indefi¬ 
nite postponement, while Messrs. Hall, Stevens and Frost dissented 
from the majority report. This was the measure most strenuously 
fought by the railway companies. The majority of the committee 
did not see fit to make an extended report, but the minority ex¬ 
plained in detail their reasons for supporting the measure and ask¬ 
ing that it be passed. The reasons given were identical with those 
found in the report of the tax commission. 

On April 23 the bill came up again and was indefinitely post- 









Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


165 


poned by the assembly on recommendation by the committee major¬ 
ity. The assembly was understood to be controlled by the gov¬ 
ernor. Whenever a test vote was taken on a measure in which he 
was interested, his wishes uniformly ruled in that house. His 
newspapers and literary bureau asserted later that the senate was 
“organized against the governor/’ but no one ever disputed the 
truth of the statement that the assembly was organized in his in¬ 
terests. There are strong grounds for the belief that, had Gov. La 
Follette exerted himself to secure the passage of taxation bills, 
practically all of the measures proposed by the commission would 
have been enacted into law. All the evidence goes to prove that he 
occupied neutral grounds on this subject and permitted his message 
to be used to the disadvantage of the taxation bills. 

The vote on the indefinite postponement of bill No. 165A is not 
recorded in the assembly journal, but there is a record of the vote 
by which Mr. Hall’s motion to adopt the amendments proposed by 
the committee on assessment and collection of taxes was rejected. 
Here is the record as it appears in the journal of April 23, 1901: 

“Mr. Hall offered as amendment to No. 165A, the amendments re¬ 
ported by the committee on assessment and collection of taxes. 

“The yeas and nays being demanded, it was decided in the negative. 

“The vote was as follows : Yeas, 39; nays, 50; absent or not voting, 
9; paired 2. 

“Yeas—Messrs. Anderson, Andrew, Babb, Barlow, Benson, Brunson. 
Cady, Cleophas, Coapman, Cook, Dahl, Dodge, Ela, Erickson, Fenelon, 
Frost, Gilman, Haggerty, Hall, Hanson, Henry, Holland, Johnson (F.), 
Johnson (H.), Keene, Kern, Lenroot, Meloney, Moldenhauer, Pomrening. 
Rogers, Scliellenberg, Srnally, Spratt, Stevens, Sturdevant, Swenholt, 
Thomas and Mr. Speaker—39. 

“Nays—Messrs. Barker, Burdeau, Clark, Collins, Dow, Duerrwachter. 
Eline, Esau. Evans (David, Jr.), Evans (Evan W.), Fessenfeld, Flaherty. 
Gagnon, Galaway, Gawin, Hodgins, Jensen, Johnson, Jones, Karel, Katz. 
Lane, McCabe, McCormick, McGill, McMillan, Manuel, Miller (Edwin 
A.), Miller (Herman), Norton, Orton, Owen, Park, Price, Rasmussen, 
Roe, Root, Rossman, Sarau, Silkworth, Smith, Soltwedel, Steiger, Valen¬ 
tine, Whitson, Williams (E. A.), Williams (J. C.), Willott, Young and 

Zinn—50. _ . 

“Absent or not voting—Messrs. Ainsworth, Eager, Krumrey, McComb, 

Middleton, Miner, Rankl, Slade and Theissenhusen—9. 

“Paired— Messrs. Overbeck and Hartung—2. 

“Mr. Overbeck, who would have voted yea, was paired with Mr. 
Hartung, who would have voted nay. 

“And the amendments were rejected. 

“No. 165A was indefinitely postponed.” 

A similar fate met the other railroad bill, No. 164A, on May 2 
by a vote of 45 in favor of engrossment and third reading and 51 
against the motion. Thus the two bills prepared by the tax com¬ 
mission, at the request of leading members of both houses, among 
whom were Mr. Hall and Senators Whitehead, Rioidan, Roehr and 
others, were killed without the governor raising a finger to aid 
them and after his own message had been used to defeat them. 


N 


156 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XIII. 

The Governor Becomes Active. 

The primary election bill was killed in the senate April 11. On 
April 24 the bill providing for an increase in the license fees paid 
by the railroads was killed in the assembly, as has been stated. The 
ad valorem railway taxation bill had been made a special order for 
10 o’clock on May 2, in the assembly. 

The defeat of his favorite primary measure manifestly roused 
Gov. La Follette to activity. On May 2 he sent to the assembly 
his famous “dog tax veto/’ a document that proved to be the open¬ 
ing gun of a verbal bombardment of the legislature that lasted 
many months. The so-called dog tax bill was not a taxation meas¬ 
ure, as a matter of fact, for it was designed to serve as a police 
measure, and in form and effect was a dog license bill. But the 
governor used this modest, shrinking little bill as a text for his tax¬ 
ation sermon and his preachment was as strenuous, not to say sen¬ 
sational, as it well could be. The legislature was given to under¬ 
stand that the poor farmer’s dog could not be taxed so long as the 
great railroad corporations were escaping their just share of the 
burdens of government. The language of that veto message fairly 
sizzled, it was so hot. 

This veto message was the first public utterance on the part of 
the governor on the subject of taxation since the opening of the 
legislative session, and it gave evidence of a complete change of 
front on his part. While his biennial message did not openly and 
in terms discredit the tax commission as a body, the use of the 
figures furnished him by the commissioner of labor and industrial 
statistics was of a character to signify doubt on his part of the 
reliability of the statistics printed in the tax commission’s report. 
His subsequent silence, the known activity of some of his support¬ 
ers in opposition to the bills prepared by the commission, and the 
use made of the material taken from his message in the arguments 
before the committees, all contributed to the defeat of the taxation 
bills. 

When he wrote his “dog tax veto” Gov. La Follette was “as mad 
as a hatter,” for reasons already outlined. The tax commission sud¬ 
denly became, in the eyes of the governor, an inspired authority, 
and he demanded the passage of the measure providing for the tax¬ 
ation of railroads on the ad valorem plan—the bill that had been 
made a special order for 10 o’clock on the day his message was 
transmitted to the assembly. In the Voters’ Handbook, published 
by the La Follette faction in 1902 as a campaign document, this 
paragraph is found in reference to that veto message: 

“This message was received and read to the assembly before the 
vote was taken on the second railway taxation bill, and ought to have 
reached the judgment and consciences of the members who were giving 



Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


157 


so little heed to the promises which had been made to the people in the 
platform before the election.” 

The assembly met at 9 o’clock a. m., and the roll was called. The 
routine business of the morning session was then taken up; a reso¬ 
lution was introduced and other resolutions considered; three bills 
were introduced; the committee on state affairs, and the committee 
on cities then reported on bills; the committee on engrossed bills 
then reported. Then came a message from the governor giving a 
list of bills which had received his approval and been filed with the 
secretary of state. This message covers three pages of the journal. 
Next comes the “dog tax veto” covering four and one-half pages 
of the journal. Following the governor’s message there was put the 
question of sustaining the veto, and the assembly, by a vote of 6 to 
82, refused to pass the bill over his veto. Two messages from the 
senate were then considered, and, the time for the special order 
having arrived, the ad valorem railroad taxation bill was taken up 
for consideration, after which it was killed by a vote of 45 in favor 
of its passage to a third reading to 51 nays. 

A great noise was made because the “dog tax veto” did not save 
the bill from destruction. By what course of reasoning did Gov. 
La Follette arrive at the belief that he could, after more than three 
months’ silence, come into the assembly less than an hour before the 
time for action on a bill and save it ? The hearings before the com¬ 
mittee had been public; members of both houses, intensely inter¬ 
ested in the subject under consideration, had followed the argu¬ 
ments of the men who appeared on both sides. They had given the 
measures as much time and consideration as was possible in a period 
of strenuous political warfare when factions were forming for a 
long drawn out battle. Was it reasonable to suppose they would 
change their opinions at the eleventh—or, rather the twelfth—hour 
at the behest of a man who had delayed three months in expressing 
an opinion, even if he had formed one ? 

The fact of the matter is that the taxation bills—all of them— 
were sacrificed to the factional fight that was begun during the leg¬ 
islative session of 1901, and, specifically, to the primary election bill. 
Had there been no opposition to the primary election bill there 
would have been no “dog tax veto;” no executive verbal lashing of 
the assembly for failure to keep promises made in the platform, no 
sudden apotheosis of the tax commission by a governor who had 
artfully discredited the same body three months before. 

That the fate of the bills was decided before the sensational 
message was written is shown by the fact that on May 2, after 
the ad valorem taxation bill was killed in the assembly, Senator 
Whitehead, one of the fathers of the taxation measures, and also 
one of the strongest and most consistent supporters of all the com¬ 
mission bills, asked that the bills be withdrawn from the senate 
files. Two days later Mr. Hall, chairman of the assembly com- 


158 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


mittee, took the same action in the assembly. There is as much 
reason to question the sincerity of Mr. Hall’s support of these 
measures as there is to accuse Senator Whitehead of being false to 
his professions of friendship for them. Both Whitehead and Hall 
had worked for months to secure their passage. La Follette came 
in after they had been killed or finally doomed and demanded 
their passage. The support of Whitehead and Hall was based on 
sincere desire to perfect the taxation laws. The tardy support of 
La Follette was born of anger because of his failure to pass his fa¬ 
vorite primary election bill. The record is so plain that it does 
not require extended comment in order to establish the truth of 
these statements. 


Taxation Reform tn Wisconsin. 


159 


CHAPTER XIY. 

A Conflict of Authority. 

Before criticising the members of either house for failure to 
pass one or the other of the railway taxation bills at that session, 
account should be taken of the peculiar situation at the time. 
The first tax commission had expressed the opinion that the li¬ 
cense fee system based on the gross earnings of the roads, was not 
securing results other taxpayers had a right to expect; the per¬ 
manent tax commission had recommended that the license fee sys¬ 
tem be retained and that the amount of the fee collected be in¬ 
creased. Gov. La Follette, while refraining from offering any re¬ 
commendations upon this specific point, endeavored to show by 
statistics that the railroad corporations were paying a higher rate 
of taxes than owners of personal property. 

To this conflict of authority may be attributed in a measure 
the inability of the legislature to arrive at a speedy and well de¬ 
fined conclusion upon the subject under consideration. It should 
also be remembered that the statistics furnished the legislature 
by the governor and the figures supplied by the tax commission 
did not agree. The members of the legislature were very much at 
sea. When the two committees on assessment and collection of 
taxes met in joint session this conflict became more and more ap¬ 
parent as time passed. It is a significant fact that Mr. Hall, chair¬ 
man of the assembly committee, the old war horse in the battle 
for increased railway taxation, acted in concert with Senator 
Whitehead, chairman of the senate committee, in withdrawing the 
taxation bills from the files when it became apparent that they 
could not be passed. 

But the controversy, the discussion before the committees and 
in the public press, had an educative value. While the legislature 
could not come to a definite conclusion on the subject at that ses¬ 
sion, the ground was prepared for future action. The obviously 
wise course was chosen and the tax commission, the body that was 
required to do the greater part of the work in solving the problem, 
was given enlarged powers and duties. They were given the tools 
to work with and instructed to build a plan that would be fair and 
just to all classes of taxpayers, one that would provide for an 
equality of tax burdens. To' the end that they might be provided 
with authority to enforce the taxation laws then in effect, addition¬ 
al penalties and punishments for violations of assessment laws by 
assessing officers and property owners and for neglect of duty b\ 
assessing officers were provided by chapter 3?9, laws of 1901, and 
chapter 330 provided for the removal of assessing officers for viola¬ 
tion of assessment laws or for neglect of official duty. 

This is all the legislature could do at that session. It was all 


160 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


the people had a right to expect of them in the circumstances. 
Whatever delay resulted from this action was necessary in order 
that future action might be based on an intelligent understanding 
of the facts relating to the obstacles to be overcome and the best 
method of overcoming them. The legislators were entitled at 
that time to the privilege of reporting progress and asking for 
time to complete their work. 

There were three important measures however, that did not 
fail of enactment by the legislature of 1901, two of which origi¬ 
nated in the senate and one in the assembly. These were senate 
bills Nos. 214 and 326, the former constituting the tax commis¬ 
sion a state board of assessment and the latter defining and en¬ 
larging the duties of that body. The assembly bill. No. 388, 
created the office of county supervisor of assessments. 

One of these bills, No. 236S, was recommended by Gov. La 
Follette in his message and prepared by the tax commission. 
The other two, also drawn by the commissioners were not men¬ 
tioned in the message. Special recommendations made by the 
governor that the statistical work of the commission be taken from 
that body and committed to the bureau of labor and industrial sta¬ 
tistics and that the life of the commission as a state board be reduc¬ 
ed to four years were ignored. His suggestions that the expenses 
of the commission be limited to a specified sum was'in part com¬ 
plied with by fixing $10,000 as the maximum amount the com¬ 
mission was allowed for clerk hire, traveling expenses, and other 
disbursements. 

The main purpose of the legislature in enacting the laws of 
1901 appears to have been to do away with the evil of undervalua¬ 
tion and provide for the assessment of all property at its actual 
cash value. To this end the hands of the tax commission were 
strengthened, a new county office was created, and all assessment 
and taxation officers were placed under the direct supervision of 
the commission, upon whom the responsibility for the reform 
was placed. This was believed to be the first important step to¬ 
ward establishing an equitable and workable taxation system and 
there do not appear to have been any radical differences of opinion 
between the members of the two houses upon the subject. The 
three bills in question were passed without opposition worthy of 
mention. 

It should be remembered that this w r as a time of unusual 
political agitation and intense personal feeling growing out of 
the contest over the primary election bill which failed of enact¬ 
ment. It is impossible now, as it was impossible then, to determine 
precisely to what extent and in what manner this fight affected the 
proposed taxation legislation, but there are the best of reasons for 
believing that, had the republican party been united and reason- 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


161 


ably harmonious in purpose, more progress would have been made 
during the 1901 session of the legislature. 

Two of the taxation bills that failed of enactment are entitled 
to especial mention because of the publicity given them, if for no 
other cause. One was the Hartung dog tax bill, and the other the 
Frost mortgage taxation bill. The former was brought into the 
limelight by Gov. La Follette’s veto message. It was in reality 
a police, and not a revenue measure. It was predicated on the 
theory that dogs need regulation even if they are not public utili¬ 
ties and that the proper way to regulate them was to enact a dog 
license law with a statewide application. 

This bill came to the governor at a time when he was smarting 
over the defeat of the primary election bill, and it offered him an 
opportunity to read the legislature a lecture on their alleged neglect 
of duty in failing to pass one of the railway taxation bills that had 
been defeated in the assembly. As has been explained, the second 
railway bill, the one that provided for the taxation of railway pro¬ 
perty on an ad valorem basis, was pending in the assembly, and 
had been made a special order of business for the morning the dog 
tax veto was received. This bill was not of enough importance to 
entitle it to create discussion. It passed the assembly by a vote of 
53 to 26 on the roll call, and in the senate the roll was not -even 
called, the bill being concurred in without opposition. 

The Frost mortgage taxation bill, however, was a more import¬ 
ant measure. It had been prepared by Assemblyman Fred J. 
Frost after^a careful study of the Massachusetts law of 1881. The 
purpose of this bill was to avoid double taxation which was inevit¬ 
able where the mortgaged property was assessed at its full value 
and the mortgage assessed separately, as was the case under the ex¬ 
isting law r s. This measure passed both houses with little or no 
opposition, the assembly committee on assessment and collection 
of taxes and the senate judiciary committee having given it their 
approval. The vote in the assembly on roll call was 58 for, and 11 
against. The roll was not called in the senate. 

Gov. La Follette returned the Frost bill with a veto message 
in which he explained that he objected to the measure for two rea¬ 
sons. His first objection was that injustice would result from the 
provision by which the two parties to a mortgage were permitted 
to agree between themselves as to which one should pay the "tax; 
the second objection was that the law would be unconstitutional 
as it would violate the rule of uniformity. The friends of the 
measure were unable to pass it over the gorvernors veto and it 
died. 

While the question of constitutionality, raised by the governor 
in this case, has never been passed upon by the court, there is good 
reason to believe his point was well taken, notwithstanding the 


162 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


fact that the Massachusetts law had been in force for twenty years. 
On this particular point the governor said: 

Another section of the bill declares that its provisions shall not apply 
to or affect mortgages executed prior to the time this act shall take effect, 
which time is fixed in the bill oil Jan. 1, 1902. It follows if the agree¬ 
ment to pay the taxes is made by the mortgagor, that mortgages exe¬ 
cuted prior to Jan. 1, 1902, are to be taxed as personal property accord¬ 
ing to the existing rules of law, while those made subsequent to that date 
are wholly exempt from taxation, because the real estate is to be taxed 
at its true value both before and after that date, and after that date 
the mortgage executed is made a part of the real estate for assessment 
purposes. On the other hand, if a mortgage should be given after Jan. 
1, 1902, and agreement to pay all taxes on the real estate is not made 
by the mortgagor, then the real estate is assessed at its true value, less 
the true value of the mortgage, but if the mortgage shall have been 
executed prior to that date, and none since, upon the same parcel of real 
estate, it is to be assessed at its true value without any reduction 
whatever, on account of the mortgage, which also is to be assessed at its 
true value. 

“In my judgment, it is not permissible, under the constitutional pro¬ 
vision quoted, either to tax mortgages executed prior to a certain date 
and to exempt those executed after that date, or to tax real estate upon 
which a mortgage has been executed prior to a certain date without any 
reduction on account of the mortgage debt and to deduct from the true 
value of similar property similarly situated the value of a mortgage 
executed subsequent to such date in making assessments for taxation 
purposes.” 

This reads like good law, and, in the absence of the court de¬ 
cision required to confirm or reject it, it is fair to assume that 
Gov. La Follette believed his constitutional objection was a sound 
one. But subsequent events demonstrated that the governor’s 
chief objection to the proposed statute was not a constitutional one. 
His first and main objection to the Frost bill was that it permitted 
the mortgagor to enter into a contract to pay the taxes on the prop¬ 
erty, inclusive of the mortgaged interest. He objected to the 
two interests being consolidated for taxation purposes. It was the 
mortgagee he was after—the man who had money to loan—not the 
tax on the property. Granting the unconstitutionality of the 
Frost bill, the fact still remains that Gov. La Follette at that time 
and later fought, for the principle of taxing the men who loaned 
money and not the property, or money,invested in the property. 

This question came up two years later and resulted in a mort¬ 
gage taxation law. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 

CHAPTER XV. 

The Campaign of 1902 . 


163 


If ever the taxation question may be said to have been an issue 
that period was in 1902, but there is only a shadow of an excuse 
for asserting that it was an issue even then. Because there was so 
much talk and so many columns of printed matter all devoted to 
the subject it does not follow that there was a well defined polit¬ 
ical contest waged by two or more contending factions support¬ 
ing specific policies with respect to the taxation problem. 
As a matter of fact, there was an abundance of discussion and con¬ 
troversy, but it was mainly devoted to elementary principles. 
The state of Wisconsin may be said to have been sitting in the pri¬ 
mary class in economics during that memorable campaign and 
listening to some astounding statements of alleged principles of 
taxation. 

For instance, it was solemnly argued by one or more promi¬ 
nent adminstration newspapers that the taxation of mortgages at 
their face value and the taxation of the mortgaged property at its 
full value without deduction on account of the mortgage was not 
double taxation. Also certain members of the legislature attempt¬ 
ed to show that the mortgagee, being a capitalist whose money 
was invested in interest bearing securities, should be taxed at the 
uniform rate of taxation on all his evidences of debt, as that was 
a definite evidence of the amount of his investment, without re¬ 
spect to the fact that the property upon which the debt was se¬ 
cured must be taxed, as it is tangible and easily assessable. 

There were also demands made that the capital stock of all cor¬ 
porations be taxed in the hands of the stockholders, even where 
the corporation was taxed on its property. It was argued also that, 
notwithstanding the experience of other states to the contrary, 
it would be possible to hunt out and assess millions of dollars of 
taxable intangible property that always had escaped the assessors. 

Lastly, there was a dispute as to the method of taxing railway 
property. Two tax commissions had expressed the opinion that 
the transportation companies were not paying their full share of 
the taxes collected in this state. The question was: Should the plan 
of taxing these corporations be changed from the license fee sys¬ 
tem to the ad valorem method ? If the license fee system were to 
be retained it was a foregone conclusion that, with the leadership 
of the tax commission to guide them, the legislature would in¬ 
evitably increase the percentage on gross earnings. There were 
many who believed this would be the best plan, as the license fee 
system was simple, almost automatic in its operations, and the 
amount of the taxes collected from the transportation companies 


164 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


could be increased at any time the demands of the state required 
by simply increasing the percentage, or amount of the fee. 

There were no well defined lines drawn between political part¬ 
ies or factions with respect to these questions. The campaign 
literature circulated for the instruction of the voters does not dis¬ 
close any definite propositions for a change of method in taxing 
any class of property. The adminstration newspapers and cam¬ 
paign circulars and books charged their opponents with responsi¬ 
bility for the defeat of the railway taxation bills in 1901, but it 
is impossible to discover which of the two bills—the one providing 
for an ad valorem assessment and the other for an increase in the 
license fee on gross earnings—was the one claimed to have been 
favored by Gov. La Follette and his followers. As the governor 
himself did not come to the support of either of these measures 
until they were defeated in fact or in effect, no nian can tell which 
one of the bills would have best satisfied him. 

That the demand for taxation reform was almost unanimous 
in this state can not truthfully be denied. That the distinguish¬ 
ing characteristic of the public discussion of the subject during 
that year was dense ignorance of the fundamental principles of 
economics is disclosed by the columns of the newspapers and the 
campaign literature circulated during the campaign. About all 
the definite information to be had was contained in the first re¬ 
port of the tax commission, and that report w r as confessedly in¬ 
complete, as the commission had not been given time to do more 
than dip into the subject and come out with a few facts and statis¬ 
tics that were merely suggestive of what a thorough investigation 
would disclose. 

The statement that there was no issue on the subject of tax¬ 
ation in the campaign of 1902, is subject, however, to one qualifi¬ 
cation: As a rule the administration faction did demand more 
taxes, while the stalwart or conservative demand was for more in¬ 
formation. It was conceded by all that large amounts of property 
were escaping taxation wholly or in part. The conservatives want¬ 
ed to proceed intelligently and along scientific lines in correcting 
the inequalities and thus avoid greater evils than those from which 
they were fleeing. The administration faction was for taxing 
everybody right and left regardless of consequences, but, during 
the campaign at least, they did not offer any specific plan for put¬ 
ting their promises of increased revenues into operation. As a 
means of arousing interest in their campaign there was much talk 
of the excessive burden borne by the farmer whose property was 
easily found and assessed, while the capitalist was escaping taxation. 
The owner of urban realty, who was then and is now the heaviest 
taxpayer in the state, came in for little sympathy. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


165 


CHAPTER XVI. 

Commission Reports Progress. 

/ 

When the legislature of 1903 convened the situation had 
changed somewhat. The tax commission was prepared to answer 
many of the questions that had puzzled members of the legislature 
at previous sessions. It had studied the situation in this state and 
the experience of other states to some purpose and was prepared 
to offer advice, hacked by definite facts and statistics in justifica¬ 
tion of the course of reasoning and conclusions upon which the ad¬ 
vice was based. The commissioners had supplemented their first 
two years of study by another biennial period of investigation and 
research. They now came to the legislature with the results of 
nearly four years of hard work. They were men of exceptional 
abilities, trained minds, and an ambition to give the state good 
service in the particular field to which they had been appointed. 
The legislature of 1901, recognizing the necessities of the situa¬ 
tion, had given them enlarged powers, thereby enabling them to 
test the old taxation system under the most favorable conditions. 

The report of the Wisconsin tax commission made in 1903 
justly has been reguarded as one of the most valuable contribu¬ 
tions to taxation literature in print. It is a volume of 260 pages, 
and contains matter of general as well as local interest. On the 
subjects of “The Inheritance Tax,” “Taxation of Credits,” and 
“Taxation of Railways” in particular, the treatment was so exhaus¬ 
tive, the analyses so clear and convincing that they carried con¬ 
viction to the minds of the legislators, or at least, to the minds of 
all members who permitted sound reason to control their official 
actions. 

The tax commission believed the law taxing inheritances, 
enacted in 1899 but declared unconstitutional by the Supreme 
court, should be corrected to comply with the suggestions of the 
court and re-enacted. Nearly forty pages of the report are devot¬ 
ed to this subject, the commission explaining that the decision of 
the Supreme court did not in any sense reflect upon the right of 
the state to levy an inheritance tax, the defect in the law being 
merely technical and one that easily could be removed. The com¬ 
missioners later presented a bill which was enacted into law and 
became chapter 44, laws of 1903. There was no opposition to this 
bill, No. 33IS, as Gov. La Follette approved of it in his message. 
The Supreme court, in declaring the law of 1899 to be unconsti¬ 
tutional, had said: 

“We have reached this conclusion reluctantly. We should far rather 
have sustained the law, but the conclusion has been forced upon us. 
We agree with the general principles which have been approved by an 
overwhelming weight of authority in the courts in this country in refer¬ 
ence to inheritance and succession tax laws. 


166 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


The bill was passed and became the law of the state. It was 
attacked in the courts but the Supreme court sustained it and it 
is now in force. There was no political issue concerning the in¬ 
heritance tax law, at least. 

The controversy over the taxation of credits however, came 
near to the point of becoming a political issue. The tax commis¬ 
sioners themselves failed to agree on a unanimous report relating 
to this subject. Commissioner Nils P. Haugen presenting a brief 
dissenting report, covering but two pages, in which he gave five 
reasons why he believed credits should not be exempted from tax¬ 
ation by law. 

The chapter devoted to taxation of credits in the main report 
in which were incorporated the opinions of Commissioners Gilson 
and Curtis covers fifty-six pages of the report, and is devided into 
four parts, as follows: “Status of the law; 77 “Statistics and 
Comment;” “Fundamental Principles; 7 ’ “Legislation in Other 
States. 77 It is this particular chapter that called forth the most 
enthusiastic indorsement of the commission’s work on the one hand 
and the sharpest criticism on the other. The failure in this and 
other states to uncover and assess all forms of credits was not the 
only reason urged by the commission and the friends of credit ex¬ 
emptions for an abandonment of the attempt. It was shown, or 
argued, at least, that credits were not property in any proper sense 
of the term. In most cases they merely represented property that 
was assessed and taxed in the hands of the owner. In this respect 
mortgages were not unique, for many other forms of,credits were 
merely evidences of a debt owed by somebody. If that somebody was 
solvent the debt was a lien on his property; if he was insolvent, the 
debt was worthless and should not be taxed because it had no value: 
It is impossible here to go into the arguments used at length. Per¬ 
sons who are interested will find the report of the Wisconsin tax 
commission for the year 1903 worth reading. 

On the other hand, the opponents of credit exemptions, un¬ 
der the leadership of Gov. La Follette, were determined that in¬ 
tangible property, including all forms of credits, should be taxed. 
There is an impression prevalent among a large number of citi¬ 
zens who have given the matter little serious thought, that, in some 
mysterious manner never explained, the burden of taxation rests 
mainly upon the poor people of the state while the wealthy owners 
of credits escape. If they are owners of credits they must be 
wealthy, and, conversely, if they are wealthy they must be owners 
of credits. Ergo, if credits are exempted from taxation the 
wealthy owner of credits will escape taxation. Probably one of the 
clearest explanations of this popular idea is the one found in Gov. 
La Follette’s message to the legislature in 1903. He said: 

“With the rapid accumulation of wealth, the increase in the amount 
and value of intangible property but strengthens year by year the reason 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


167 


and justice ot‘ its taxation in some form. The vast accumulations of 
wealth may be invested in interest bearing securities, insuring large 
incomes to the holders who throw their share of the expense of main¬ 
taining streets and schools and public institutions, and all the burdens 
of municipal and state government upon the owners of factories and 
shops, and stores and farms and homes, violates every principle of 
equal rights and equal responsibilities guaranteed to American citizens.” 

That is the understanding of the situation upon which is 
founded the proposition to tax credits. On the other hand, the 
opponents of credit taxation explain that the “factories and shops 
and stores and farms and homes,” together with a few other 
classes of property like the transportation lines, the mines, timber 
lands and unused agricultural lands, both of which are supposed 
to be adding an unearned increment of value yearly to their worth, 
are really the basis of all the credits of the country. A debt that is 
secured, if it be wealth “invested in interest bearing securities,” is 
represented somewhere by tangible property, even if the evidence of 
debt be intangible. To tax the tangible property at its full value 
and then tax the intangible security that merely represents a right 
to demand payment from the owner of that property, is double 
taxation. 

But this was not what Gov. La Follette and those who followed 
him proposed to do with real estate mortgages. They argued that 
the value of the mortgage should be deducted from the assessment 
of the mortgaged property, the mortgagee being required to pay 
the taxes on his interest in the property represented by the mort¬ 
gage instrument. They would not agree to permit the two parties 
to the business transaction to enter into a contract by which the 
mortgagor should obligate himself to pay the taxes. They were de¬ 
termined to force the mortgagee to pay the taxes on his mortgage. 
It was the man they were after, not merely the tax on property. 
This was one of the vital defects—as viewed by the governor—in 
the Frost mortgage taxation bill of 1901. It was the point in con¬ 
troversy in the legislature of 1903 and one over which there was a 
threatened deadlock between the two houses, the assembly, where 
Gov. La Follette held a majority, and the senate, where the con¬ 
servatives were in control. 

The controversy finally resulted in the enactment of a law that, 
in effect, exempted the mortgage from taxation as recommended 
by the tax commission, by permitting the two interests to be taxed 
together. This was not the intention of the original authors of the 
bill, No. 662A, which was drawn with the distinct idea of holding 
the mortgagee strictly to account for his share of the tax by making 
it unlawful for the two parties to the mortgage to enter into an 
agreement whereby the mortgagor should pay the entire tax. The 
bill passed the assembly in this form, was amended by the senate, 
and finally went to a conference committee, where it was perma¬ 
nently amended. That law has remained piactically unchanged 

until the present. 


108 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XVII. 

Ad Valorem Railway Taxation in 1903. 

The most important work of the legislature of 1903, however, 
was the passage of the ad valorem railway taxation bill. As has 
been explained, the subject of railroad taxation had been con¬ 
tinuously before the legislature in one form or another for ten years, 
or since A. R, Hall first proposed to investigate the records of the 
companies to assertain whether they were reporting their gross 
earnings honestly. The first tax commission had reported in 1899 
that it was of opinion the railroads were not paying their just share 
of the taxes. The tax commission in 1901 had made a similar re¬ 
port, but recommended that the license fee system be retained un¬ 
til such time as more definite information on the subject could be 
secured. 

In 1903, however, the commission reported strongly in favor 
of an ad valorem assessment of all railroad property for the pur¬ 
poses of taxation. It suggested that the license fee system be re¬ 
tained for a term of years; that an ad valorem assessment of rail¬ 
road property be made each year and the tax computed on the as¬ 
sessed valuation at the rate paid by the general property of the state; 
that if the license fee collected amounted to more than the tax 
computed on the assessment of the property, the excess be 
returned to the company paying such excess; should the license 
fee be less than the amount of the tax computed on the ad valorem 
plan, the company should be required to pay the balance. 

Gov. La Follette also recommended that the ad valorem system 
of taxing railway property be adopted. He scolded the legislature 
of 1903 in round terms for the failure of the legislatures of 1899 
and 1901 to solve the taxation problem. He told them they had 
nothing to consider—all the considering had been attended to by 
what he believed to be the proper body. There was only one thing 
for the legislature to do, and that was to pass the bill prepared for 
them by the tax commission and let it go at that. One of the 
most interesting paragraphs in that extraordinarily interesting 
message is worth reproducing here because of its dogmatic, arbi¬ 
trary tone. It is not likely there will be found in the state records 
before or since the La Follette period any instance where a legis¬ 
lature was told in such definite and unequivocal terms what it was 
expected to do with respect to certain legislation. The governor 
said: 

“Effort may be further continued to obstruct the course of justice. 
These failing, as a last resort efforts will be made to compromise. There 
has been given into our hands a trust to discharge. Differences of 
opinion may arise in the performance of public duty upon questions of 
policy. This is not a question of policy. The railroad companies of this 
state owe the state more than $1,000,000 a year. For many years, because 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


169 


of the postponement or defeat of legislation requiring them to pay their 
proportionate share of the taxes, the other taxpayers of Wisconsin have 
paid foi them $1,000,000 annually. The case has been tried, the hearing 
has been full. Judgment has been given again and again. Pledges have 
been made by political parties, and repeated by candidates for office, over 
and over again. The question is not an open one. There is no oppor¬ 
tunity for misunderstanding. There is no room for speculation. The 
truth is ascertained. The truth is known. It is lodged in the public 
mind to stay. The people want $1,000,000 a year, because it is the sum 
owing. They are not to be wheedled by any soft phrases about “con¬ 
servatism.” There is nothing to compromise. Equal and just taxation 
is a fundamental principle of republican government. The amount due 
as taxes from railroads and other public service corporations should be 
paid, and paid in full, and I am confident the legislation to secure that 
payment will be promptly enacted. 

“/ recommend that the hill formulated hy the tax commission in ac¬ 
cordance tvith their report, pursuant to the law creating that body , and 
presented by them to the legislature, be passed promptly, and that there 
may be no uncertainty I now say that a measure creating a state board 
of assessment to determine the value of railroad property, and applying 
to railroad companies and other public service corporations the same rate 
of taxation which other taxable property pays in this state, will be 
promptly approved by the executive, if given the opportunity.” 

Complaint had been made the previous year that Gov. La Fol- 
lette had attempted to usurp the privileges and functions of the 
legislative branch of the state government, or at least to dictate 
to the legislature in an arbitrary and unlawful manner. That com¬ 
plaint was not without foundation in fact. That the governor did 
not take seriously the constitutional limitation placed upon his 
activities as a public servant is shown by his attempt to dictate what 
the action of the two houses should be with respect to the proposed 
railway taxation legislation. 

The tax commission, it is true, had recommended that the ad 
valorem system be adopted. The members of that body had given 
the subject careful consideration. They had, so far as they were 
able without the assistance of expert engineers, made a complete 
valuation of all the railroads in the state and estimated the amount 
of taxes they would have been required to pay had they been as-, 
sessed at the rates paid by owners of other classes of property tax¬ 
ed on an ad valorem assessment. Sixtv-seven pages of the commis¬ 
sion’s report was devoted to the subject of railroad taxation. The 
commissioners had attempted to avoid error by working out the 
problem in different ways. They had made what they believed to 
be a fair valuation of the property by ascertaining the market va¬ 
lue of the stocks and bonds of the several roads for terms of years, 
taking the average value of those securities for three, five and 
seven year periods respectively. They then took the net earnings 
of the roads and capitalized them at 6 per cent. In this way they 
had arrived at the conclusion that had the railroads been taxed 
on the ad valorem plan in 1902 they would have paid approximate- 


170 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


ly $2,652,590.62, instead of $1,711,900.18, the amount they did 

pay* ’ 

But the tax commission was not in a position to ask the legis¬ 
lature to accept its conclusions as final, nor did it presume to do 
so. It is a principle of republican government that when any citi¬ 
zen’s interests are being considered by the state he is entitled to a 
hearing. Every taxpayer has his day before the board of review 
if he is disposed to demand it. From the beginning it has been con¬ 
ceded that when the legislature is in session and important mat¬ 
ters are pending before it, citizens whose interests are likely to be 
affected by the enactment of laws or the defeat of measures are en¬ 
titled to appear before legislative committees and be heard. This 
was what the tax commission had supposed would be done. This 
was what the members of the legislature proposed to do. This was 
what all legislatures previously had done when undertaking im¬ 
portant legislation. 

Although Gov. La Follette informed the legislature that a bill' 
had been, or would be, formulated by the tax commission which 
he expected would be passed without hesitation, the Tact is the com¬ 
mission was not ready when the session convened to present a bill. 
They had performed their work conscientiously and believed their 
conclusions were correct, but they felt that, before a final decision 
could be reached that would answer all the demands of justice and 
fair play, the representatives of the corporations whose interests 
would be affected should be heard. 

This was the course adopted. Notices of joint hearings by the 
committees of the two houses were sent to the officers of all the rail¬ 
roads in Wisconsin with a request that the presidents and attorneys 
of the roads attend in person and present the arguments of the cor¬ 
porations, if the proposed plan of taxing the roads on an ad valor¬ 
em assessment should be objectionable to them. This course was 
adopted because there had been so much complaint during recent 
years concerning the railroad “lobby.” These complaints had been 
made on the stump, in the administration newspapers, and in cam¬ 
paign literature. The “lobbyists” were represented to be men 
without consciences, responsibility, or principle. They were class¬ 
ed as “hired men” whose business it was to defeat all kinds of legis¬ 
lation that, in their opinion, might be detrimental to their em¬ 
ployers and of advantage to the people. A conference with the 
lobbyists, therefore, was not desired by the committeemen. They 
wanted the railroad presidents and heads of the legal departments 
at their meetings if possible. Such a conference could not fail to 
enlighten both the members of the committees and the heads of 
the transportation companies and contribute to a better under¬ 
standing. 

The first meeting was held in the committee room of the senate 
committee on assessment and collection of taxes on Feb. 11, 1903, 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


171 


there being present at the conference the committees of both 
houses, the members of the tax commission, Judge Gilson and 
Messrs. Curtis and Haugen, and officers of the several railroads 
doing business in Wisconsin. The Northwestern road was repre¬ 
sented by President Marvin Hughitt and General Council Lloyd 
Bowers; President Earling and General council George R. Peck 
represented the Milwaukee road; T. H. Gill attended to the inter¬ 
ests of the Wisconsin Central. The Burlington road v T as repre¬ 
sented by W. W. Baldwin, assistant to the president. The small¬ 
er roads entrusted their interests to Norman James, president 
of the Wisconsin Western, or Ivickapoo Valley road; H. A. J. 
Upham, who represented the stockholders of that road, and H. 0. 
Fairchild, attorney for the Green Bay and Western. 

It is not the intention here to review the arguments urged for 
and against the ad valorem system of taxation. It is sufficient to 
say that the officers of the railroads made a presentation of their 
case in a very temperate, conservative manner. One of the prin¬ 
cipal arguments and the one that appeared to be presented with 
the greatest confidence in its soundness and conclusiveness, was 
the statement by President Earling of the Milwaukee road that the 
railroads of Wisconsin paid one-eleventh of all the taxes collected 
in this state. He did not believe the roads owned one-eleventh of 
all the property in the state. Both Mr. Hughitt and Mr. Earling 
explained that in the states where the ad valorem assessment policy 
was in force the results were neither profitable to the states nor 
satisfactory to the railroad companies. 

If the tax commission had already prepared a tentative bill at 
that time for presentation to the committee nothing was said at 
this meeting of that fact. That the members of the commission 
had outlined such a measure was generally understood, but they 
wanted to hear from the railroad officers before they presented it. 
They did not think “the case has been tried, and the hearing has 
been fullthat “judgment has been given again and again.” 
They wanted to hear the other side of the case and gather what in¬ 
formation they could from the testimony. This conference was 
the final hearing and the eomulission was then prepared definitely 
to recommend a bill to the two houses. A full report of the pro¬ 
ceedings of the conference was presented to the senate by the com¬ 
mittee on Feb. 18, and printed in the Senate Journal of that date, 
on pages 312 to 349. Other hearings were held later which were 
attended by the railroad officials, at which the details of the bill 
were gone through with item by item, but no official reports of 
these conferences were printed in the records. 

The reader should bear in mind that the governor, in his mes¬ 
sage had spoken in the highest terms of the tax commission and 
recommended the bill “to be formulated” by that body as one that 
should be acted upon without delay. The case had been tried, he 


172 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


said. There was nothing to consider. The tax commission had 
settled the entire dispute and they had embodied their conclusions 
in a bill that must be passed at once. 

The tax commission bill, No. 332S., was introduced in the sen¬ 
ate by the committee on assessment and collection of taxes on Feb. 
13, two days after the conference with the railroad officials. This 
bill was introduced without change of any kind. It was the iden¬ 
tical bill prepared by the commission. In it were embodied the re¬ 
sults of nearly four years of careful investigation by the commis¬ 
sion. As the commission would, under the operations of the meas¬ 
ure, be charged with the duty of making an assessment of rail¬ 
road property and computing the tax that must be paid on that 
assessment, the sections of the bill in which provision was made for 
assessing the property were drawn with particular care, as it was 
the determination of the commissioners to so do their work that it 
would stand the test in the highest court. 

On the same day assembly bill No. 600 was introduced by the 
committee on assessment and collection of taxes in that house. 
This bill was a duplicate of the one introduced in the senate with 
three important exceptions. The senate bill provided for an as¬ 
sessment in the year 1903 for the taxes of 1904; the assembly bill 
provided for an assessment in the year 1903 for the taxes of 1903. 
By the senate bill the commission was required to make and com¬ 
plete the assessment by the first day of December, 1903; the assem¬ 
bly bill required that the assessment be completed by August 1, 
1903. The senate bill provided that, after completing the assess¬ 
ment the commission should meet as a board of review in Decem¬ 
ber, giving the railroad officials an opportunity to appear and show 
cause why the assessment should be changed, if any cause could 
be found; the assembly bill made no provision for a review of the 
assessment. The senate bill was referred to the committee on as¬ 
sessment and collection of taxes of that house and was never heard 
from again until it was withdrawn from the files by unanimous 
consent on May 20. 

The tax commission bill, the one recommended in his message 
by the governor, manifestly did not receive the support and coun¬ 
tenance of the governor’s faction. On the contrary, the men who 
were in Gov. La Follette’s confidence, who were nearest to him in 
the private, not to say secret, councils of his party, were the men 
who were behind the mutilated bill that was introduced in the as¬ 
sembly. They were the men who, on Feb. 28, were instrumental 
in having an amendment to bill No. 600A, reported, one that was 
intended to correct the manifest error already pointed out in the 
original bill by which the companies were not given an opportun¬ 
ity to appear before the commission sitting as a board of review, 
but which they made a bad matter worse by providing that the 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


173 


assessment be completed by the fourth Wednesday in June—a 
physical impossibility. 

This amendment to No. 600A, was reported by the committee 
on Saturday, Feb. 28, just as the house was about to adjourn so 
that members could leave for their homes. On Monday it was 
printed and placed on the desks of members, but there was little 
business transacted that day. The entire proceedings of the day 
do not cover four full pages of the journal. 

On Tuesday, March 3, the bill appeared on the assembly calen¬ 
dar for the first time, and, as it was understood that amendments 
would be offered, the consideration of the matter was made a spe¬ 
cial order for the following day, Wednesday, March 4, at 10 o’clock 
a. m. On Wednesday the expected amendments were offered and 
voted down and the bill was ordered to engrossment and third read¬ 
ing. On Friday, March 6, less than a week from the time the 
amendments "were introduced, during which time there w r ere but 
four working days, this bill, the most important measure before the 
legislature and containing provisions that had never been consid¬ 
ered by the tax commission or by the committees on assessment and 
collection of taxes of the two houses, was passed by the assembly 
and “put up to the senate.” 

It was reported at the time that the amendments to and 
changes in the assembly bill were the work of the tax commission. 
As a matter of fact the head of the commission, Judge Gilson, did 
draw the amendments at the request of certain administration 
leaders, but he gave it to be understood that he did not approve 
of them. He made no secret of the fact that he distinctly and 
emphatically disapproved of them. As it was a well known fact that 
the administration leaders in the assembly did not make any im¬ 
portant moves without the consent of Gov. La Follette, it thus 
becomes clear that the governor himself was behind the attempt 
to ignore the recommendations of the commission. Had this at¬ 
tempt been successful a law would have been enacted that would 
have been impossible of enforcement and the courts would not have 
upheld it, thereby causing another delay of two years. 


174 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XVIII. 

How an Agreement was Reached. 

• 

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the administration 
members were playing politics with this bill. There was at this 
time no opposition to the proposed change of policy with respect 
to the taxation of railroad property recommended by the tax com¬ 
mission. It was conceded on all hands that the investigations by the 
commission, the conclusions reached and reports made by that 
body, had rendered such a change imperative. Even the officers 
of the railroads who took part in the conferences mentioned under¬ 
stood this fact. It is true they formally presented their arguments 
in favor of the license fee system, but it is equally true that they 
were reasonably certain the ad valorem system would be substitut¬ 
ed for the license fee system by the legislature. While they opposed 
the change, they felt that under certain conditions that might 
reasonably be expected to arise the ad valorem system would be the 
better of the two, even from the standpoint of their own interests. 
There was no limit beyond which the license fee on gross earnings 
might not be raised. The amount of the fee was left to the determi¬ 
nation of the legislature alone. It was not difficult to believe the 
time might come when the license fee, increased by the legislature to 
6 per cent or more on gross earnings, largely expanded by the in¬ 
creased development of the country’s resources, would prove to be 
a heavy burden. 

But in “playing politics” with the taxation bill for the purpose 
of “putting it up to the senate” and manufacturing campaign thun¬ 
der the assembly administration men made a fatal error from a “rec¬ 
ord” standpoint. They passed a bill containing directions with 
which the tax commission would not have been able to comply in 
making the first assessment of railroad property. It would have 
been a physical impossibility for the commission to put a valuation 
on Wisconsin railroad property in the time allowed. No amount of 
help and no available funds that might be provided would make it 
. possible for them to undertake and complete the work within the 
time specified. 

Up to the time they began the preparation of the bill introduced 
in the senate, the tax commission had made two estimates of the 
value of the railroad property in this state, one reported to the leg¬ 
islature in 1901 and the other in 1903. These estimates were in¬ 
tended to aid the legislature in determining for itself whether the 
railroad companies were bearing their fair proportion of the tax 
burdens. 

But estimating the value of an entire class of property for the 
purposes of a legislature and making detailed assessments of that 
property for taxation purposes are two different matters. One may 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


175 


be approximately correct only, the other must be demonstrably cor¬ 
rect; one may be made without the knowledge or consent of the 
owner, in making the other the owner must be afforded every facil¬ 
ity to be heard in order to satisfy the common rules of justice. In 
making an estimate of the value of the property of the railroads 
the stock and bond valuation and the capitalization of the nei> in¬ 
come were the simplest and most satisfactory means of arriving at 
the desired results. But in making an assessment for the purposes 
of taxation, it became necessary to place a valuation on all the 
physical property of the several roads—their rights of way, rolling 
stock and equipment of all kinds, as well as on their franchises. It 
was worse than foolish to expect the work to be completed in the 
time specified in the bill. 

Gov. La Follette had said in his message that no more delays 
would be permitted. The case had been tried, he asserted, and 
judgment had been rendered. The state wanted $1,000,000 a year 
more from the railroads than they had been paying in the past. 
By forcing the tax commission to adopt its previous estimates of 
the value of railroad property without further verification or pos¬ 
sible correction, without the necessary valuation of the physical 
property of the roads, the demand of the governor for $1,000,000 a 
year would be met, provided the courts did not interfere. There 
was the rub. The courts would have interfered to prevent the en¬ 
forcement of such a loosely drawn, imperfect measure. 

It may be of interest here to cite the fact that, during the entire 
controversy between the factions in this state, th^re was a small but 
respectable number among conservatives who were in favor of pass¬ 
ing any measures the administration faction might propose. It was 
argued that the radical element was in control of the administration 
forces and that they were so extravagantly radical that they would 
never be able to prepare a measure that would stand the test of the 
courts. The bills they prepared were designed to “catch” some 
class of citizens or some industry and “fix” them. Naturally this 
was not the explanation given by the friends of these measures as a 
reason for their presentation or introduction, but the facts were 
well known. The primary election bill was designed to “catch” 
and “fix” the politicians and “bosses” on the other side, in the 
other faction. The railway taxation bill was designed to “catch” 
the railroad companies and “fix” them to the tune of $1,000,000 a 
year more than they were then paying. Railway rate regulation 
bills also were drawn with a view of taking over practically the 
entire management of the transportation lines and placing it m the 

hands of a state board. 

Had the conservative element m the legislature—or, more accu¬ 
rately speaking, the senate, for the conservatives in the assembly m 
1903 did not exert any influence on the work ot that house per¬ 
mitted the radicals of the assembly to enact into statute laws the 


176 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


“reform” bills prepared and presented by the administration leaders 
and committees without amendment or objection, the people of Wis¬ 
consin would have been treated to the most remarkable illustration 
of the destructive tendency of hasty and ill advised legislation of 
modern times. As a matter of fact, the administration men devel¬ 
oped a positive genius for blunders in framing bills and an equally 
remarkable genius for evading the consequences of their blunders in 
being helped out of their difficulties by conservative amendments. 
This statement holds good when applied to the entire period of con¬ 
troversy and to every important subject of legislation .considered 
during that time, with the single exception of the primary election 
law. The radicals were bent on rushing to destruction; the con¬ 
servatives held them back and guided them by a safe path around 
the dangers that beset them. The goal was finally reached in spite 
of—not because of—the intemperance of the radicals who claimed 
all the credit for progress made. They even adopted the title 
“Progressive” as one peculiarly fitting their own exalted personali¬ 
ties, while they assigned to their guides the reproachful designa¬ 
tion, “Reactionaries.” 

As was usual, the conservatives of the senate, with the aid and 
consent of the tax commission, be it known, prepared a series of 
amendments to the railway taxation bill when it came up in that 
house. With one exception the senate amendments finally were 
accepted by the assembly. That single exception was the proposal 
to exempt from taxation the bonds of railroad companies. The tax 
commission had, in computing the value of the railroad property in 
this state, taken as a basis for their figures the value of the stocks 
and bonds of the companies for periods of three, five, and seven 
years. It was considered fair and just to exempt those bonds from 
taxation in the hands'of individual owners after having included 
them in the assessment of the railroad property and taxed them to 
the company itself. This was the action recommended by the tax 
commission and urged by the senate committee, but the assembly 
refused to accept the amendment and the senate withdrew it rather 
than defeat the bill altogether. 

Senate amendments that were accepted by the assembly, how¬ 
ever, were important in that they removed *the main objections to 
the bill. The time given the commissioners to complete the first 
assessment of the property of the Wisconsin railroads was extended 
from August 1, 1903, to December 1, 1903, as was also the time for 
fixing the valuation of the real and personal property of the state 
for the purpose of computing the rate of taxation to be applied to 
railroad property. The proposition to levy a tax on the ad valorem 
plan in the year 1903 was abandoned, it being determined that the 
first assessment, made in 1903, should be used to determine the 
amount of the taxes for 1904, and the taxes in 1905 should be 
based on the assessment of 1904. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


177 


There were a number of minor amendments proposed by the 
senate and accepted by the assembly, but it is unnecessary to give 
them in full. It is sufficient to say that they were all drawn by 
the tax commission and they were all designed to strengthen the 
measure. The tax commission also prepared the amendment ex¬ 
empting railroad bonds from taxation, which was rejected by the 
assembly. 

In order that there may be no doubt about the position taken 
by the so-called “reactionaries” with respect to the ad valorem 
railway taxation bill, the following quotation from the official 
records is given at some length. This excerpt is taken from the 
report of the conference committee on No. 600A, and will be found 
on page 1054 of the Senate Journal, exhibit B. senate reply in 
writing to the propositions of the assembly conferees: 

“4. Senate conferees once more call attention to the origin of bill 
No. 600A, and of the senate amendments thereto. The tax commission¬ 
ers prepared a bill in manifold copies entitled, ‘A bill to provide for the 
taxation of railroads and making an appropriation therefor.’ One of 
these copies was transmitted to the committee on assessment and col¬ 
lection of taxes in each house for introduction, and on the same day 
the copy received by the senate committee was introduced without any 
changes whatever, as bill No. 332S. and the copy received by the assem¬ 
bly committee was introduced with a number of amendments as bill No. 
600A. Section 25 of this bill was not changed by the assembly commit¬ 
tee before its introduction, and the section appears both in bill No. 332S. 
and in bill No. 600A, as printed, as the senate would have it appear in 
amended bill No. 600A. All of the amendments proposed by the senate 
were prepared by the tax commissioners and in accordance with their 
judgment of the amendments required to enable the senate to make the 
bill what it ought to be, and senate conferees have no more hesitation in 
urging assembly conferees to accept the rejected amendment than they 
would have had in insisting upon concurrence in any of the other amend¬ 
ments offered to and concurred in by the assembly. The bill in its 
present amended form (including the rejected amendment to section 25), 
is the bill contemplated in the report of the tax commissioners, and 
senate conferees insist that both senate and assembly are obligated to 
enact it as a law. In his biennial message to the legislature, Gov. La 
Follette said 

“ ‘You will soon be in possession of the report of the tax commission. 
It represents nearly four years of labor by the able members of that 
body without bias "or prejudice, prompted solely by a desire conscien 
tiously to discharge high official obligation. I am confident you will 
place a reliance upon the work of this commission that the public has 
already sealed with its approval. If the inauguration of the investiga¬ 
tion of this subject by the commission was in good faith, then in good 
faith those for whose guidance its work was planned are bound to give 
heed to its findings and recommendations.’ 

“5. Assembly conferees characterize the rejected senate amendment 
as proposing ‘a most intolerable form of class legislation and one which 
can in no way be justified or defended before the people.’ Senate con¬ 
ferees regret that the assembly conferees should have used language 
which seems to place them in antagonism to both the tax commission 

and the governor, 




178 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


II. 

“1. Senate conferees are in accord with assembly conferees in their 
utmost desire to stand ‘upon the broad principle of the equal and just 
taxation of each individual and every corporation.’ 

“2. Assembly conferees reiterate the constitutional questions raised 
by them in the informal conferences already held by the joint committee. 
Senate conferees express their regret that their suggstions that the tax 
commissioners and the attorney general be called to the aid of the joint 
committee were not acted upon. 

“3. Senate conferees have relied upon the reports of the tax com¬ 
mission and upon the fact that the amended bill itself was prepared and 
recommended by the tax commissioners as sufficiently assuring that the 
bill was not open to constitutional objections. Senate conferees do not 
agree to the position taken by assembly conferees that the exemption 
of the bonds of a railway company secured upon its property fully taxed 
as other property is taxed would invalidate the bill, nor do they agree 
that the amendment in question would justly give rise to ‘a charge 
against the legislature of enacting inequitable class legislation.’ Never¬ 
theless senate conferees state that they deem it urgently necessary that 
any uncertainty surrounding this bill be promptly removed, and that 
every doubt that any member of the joint committee on conference may 
entertain respecting the validity of the bill be at once dispelled. Senate 
conferees therefore agree that the senate shall recede. They ask the 
immediate return of the papers to the senate for the purpose of carrying 
out this agreement.” 

The'senate having receded from its position, the bill was passed 
and became a law, chapter 315, laws of 1903. This law was in 
effect the original tax commission bill with the exception of the 
provision to exempt from taxes all railroad bonds. The members of 
the committees before whom the hearings were held were: 

Senate: Senators Whitehead, chairman; Gaveney, Hatton, O’Neil, 
Bird, Johnson, and Stout. 

Assembly: Messrs. Smalley, chairman : Dahl, Whitson, Henry John¬ 
son, Dinsdale, Doolittle, Terrens. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


/ 


179 


CHAPTER XIX. 

Summary of Taxation Legislation. 

To the end that the facts with respect to taxation legislation 
during the last twelve years may be clearly and easily grasped by 
the reader, the following summary of laws enacted has been ar¬ 
ranged, together with their origin and the support they received in 
the upper and lower house. 

Chapter 340, laws of 1897; the law creating the first tax com¬ 
mission. Drawn by K. Iv. Kennan; introduced by Assemblyman 
Merriman of the Third Rock county district. Passed by a con¬ 
servative legislature and signed by a conservative governor. 

Chapter 206 and chapter 322, laws of 1899; creating perma¬ 
nent tax commission. Drawn by committee on assessment and col¬ 
lection of taxes, Senators Whitehead, Riordan, and Thayer. A con¬ 
servative measure passed by a conservative legislature and ap¬ 
proved by a conservative governor. 

Chapters 111, 112, 113, and 114, laws of 1899, providing for 
the ad valorem taxation of express, sleeping car, freight line and 
equipment companies. Known as the “Whitehead laws”; conserva¬ 
tive measures, passed both senate and assembly without a dissent¬ 
ing vote and signed by Gov. Scofield. With a few minor changes 
these laws are still in force. 

Chapter 345, laws of 1899; the inheritance tax law. Recom¬ 
mended by the first tax commission; drawn by senate committee 
on assessment and collection of taxes; passed both houses with little 
opposition. This law was later declared void by the Supreme court 
because of a technical error in its construction, but the necessary 
correction was made, and the law was re-enacted in 1903. Is now 
in force. A conservative law. 

Chapter 326, laws of 1899; Judge Orton’s insurance taxation 
bill. Drawn by Assemblyman P. A. Orton of Lafayette county, a 
conservative. Passed both houses by good majorities and received 
the approval of Gov. Scofield. This was during the last conserva¬ 
tive administration. 

Chapter 379, laws of 1901, provided additional penalties and 
punishments for violations of the assessment laws by assessing 
officers and property owners and for neglect of duty by assessing * 
officers. This and the two following statutes were drawn by the 
tax commission and were passed with little opposition. 

Chapter 330, laws of 1901, provided for the removal of assess¬ 
ing officers for violation of assessment laws or for neglect of official 
duty. 

Chapter 445, laws of 1901, created the office of county super¬ 
visor of assessments. There was no controversy over this law, as it 
was passed without substantial opposition. 


180 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


Chapter 237, laws of 1901, enlarged the duties and powers of 
the tax commission by making that body a state board of assess¬ 
ment • to assess the general property of the state for the levy of 
state taxes. This bill was introduced by the committee on assess¬ 
ment and collection of taxes in the senate, a conservative commit¬ 
tee, and passed both houses without opposition. 

Chapter 35, laws of 1903, and chapter 477, laws of 1905, made 
some changes in the method of assessing and collecting the taxes 
of express, sleeping car, freight line and equipment companies. 
These measures were presented by the senate and assembly commit¬ 
tees on assessment and collection of taxes respectively and they were 
passed without a dissenting vote in either house. 

Chapter 44, laws of 1903, the inheritance tax law now in force. 
This bill, No. 33IS, was drawn by the tax commission, introduced 
in the senate by the committee on assessment and collection of taxes, 
and passed that house by a unanimous vote. When it came up 
for passage in the assembly the vote was 76 to 18, and the bill 
passed and became a law. It was subsequently amended without 
opposition during the same session in order to correct errors that 
had crept in. 

Chapter 316, laws of 1903, and 523, laws of 1905, amendatory 
to chapter 445, laws of 1901, creating the office of county super¬ 
visor of assessments, passed both houses without opposition. These 
laws were all drawn by the tax commission. 

Chapter 315, laws of 1903, is the ad valorem railway taxation 
law. The original bill was drawn by the tax commission and was 
introduced in the senate without change by the committee on 
assessment and collection of taxes. A mutilated bill was introduced 
in the assembly committee of that house. This bill did not re¬ 
ceive the indorsement of the tax commission, but it represented 
the views of Gov. La Follette. It was railroaded through the 
assembly in less than a week and was “put up to the senate,” the 
conservative body. A deadlock resulted, which was finally settled 
by compromise by a conference committee, the assembly consenting 
to accept all senate amendments but one—the exemption of rail¬ 
road bonds from taxation. With that exception the statute as it was 
finally enacted was the work of the tax commission. 

Chapter 216, laws of 1905, amended the above law in some 
respects as the" experience of the commission suggested. This 
amendment was drawn by the tax commission. It was introduced 
in the assembly by Henry Johnson “by request,” and passed both 
houses without the formality of a roll call, there being no oppo¬ 
sition. 

Chapter 259, laws of 1905, authorizing the commission to re¬ 
view assessments made by county boards, prepared by the tax com¬ 
mission and introduced in the assembly by the committee on assess¬ 
ment and collection of taxes, passed that body by a vote of 72 for 



Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


181 


and 2 against, those voting no being Assemblyman Frank Johnson 
of W alworth and John Scott of Columbia county. The vote in the 
senate was unanimous for the bill. 

Chapter 493, laws of 1905, for the assessment and taxation of 
street railway companies by the tax commission, was prepared by 
the commission and introduced in the assembly by the committee 
on assessment and collection of taxes. It passed both houses with¬ 
out opposition, the vote on roll call being unanimous in both in¬ 
stances. In the assembly 74 votes were cast for the bill and 21 
in the senate. There was a deadlock on this bill for a time, the 
assembly refusing to concur in an amendment made by the senate. 
The matter was referred to a conference committee of the two 
houses, consisting of Senators George B. Hudnall, W. H. Hatton, 
and A. W. Sanborn, and Assemblymen A. H. Dahl, Henry John¬ 
son and J. M. Crowley. The assembly conferees finally agreed to 
report in favor of receding from their position and the unanimous 
vote in favor of the bill as amended bv the senate was the result. 

Chapter 494, laws of 1905, for the assessment and taxation of 
property of telegraph companies by the commission. Introduced 
in the assembly by the committee on assessment and collection of 
taxes and passed that body by a vote of 67 for and 14 against. 
Senate committee offered an amendment in the form of a substi¬ 
tute which was adopted by that body by a unanimous vote. Senate 
substitute then went to the assembly, where it was concurred in by 
a vote of 68 for and 1 against. Assemblyman Brockhausen was 
the one member who voted alone in opposition to the measure. 

It will thus be seen that the real constructive work for the im¬ 
provement of the taxation system in this state has been done by the 
conservative tax commission aided by the conservative members of 
the legislature. So far as taxation legislation is concerned the so- 
called “progressives” cut an insignificant figure in the official rec¬ 
ords of the state except in one case—where they attempted to delay 
progress by forcing the enactment of a law that could not have been 
enforced. 



182 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XX. 

The Work Not Yet Completed. 

It is not the purpose of this review to criticise unjustly past 
administrations, the tax commission, or the legislature for their 
failure to speak the last word in taxation reform. Much has been 
accomplished, as already has been shown. There remains much 
more that must be done before the citizens will be in a position to 
give their unqualified approval to the work of taxation reform and 
its results. 

Criticism that begins and ends in criticism, and has no purpose 
but criticism, degenerates into plain fault finding, and is the office 
of the common scold. The publication of the truth about state 
affairs for the purpose of enlightening the citizens concerning the 
details of their public business is another matter. It is only by 
spreading abroad the facts with respect to the history and effect 
of the taxation reform and other movements that the people can 
arrive at an understanding of the present situation and provide 
for the future. 

As has been shown, the real constructive work for taxation re¬ 
form was performed by the conservative element in Wisconsin. 
The movement had its birth in the conservative ranks and every 
step of a progressive character originated with them, and was car¬ 
ried to a successful conclusion by and through their efforts. They 
believed there was no royal road to success in the line of taxation 
reform, and for that reason they made progress slowly. Had the 
councils of the intemperate advocates of drastic measures been 
heeded by the legislature conditions would have been very different 
from those that now obtain. We would have had litigation prompt¬ 
ly begun, and carried to a successful conclusion, thereby bringing 
about cancellations of tax levies, an impoverished treasury, and in¬ 
creased burdens. As it is, we merely have more money than is 
required for the needs of the state if its affairs shall be economically 
and judiciously, not parsimoniously, managed. 

When Gov. La Follette said, in his message read to the legisla¬ 
ture in 1901, that “The period covered by two biennial sessions of 
the legislature would appear to be a generous allowance .of time for 
a thorough and complete performance of the work contemplated 
by the law” creating the tax commission he merely expressed an 
opinion that was based on little definite information. The same 
opinion prevailed in Minnesota about the same time. A commis¬ 
sion was appointed in that state to revise the taxation laws and it 
performed the work assigned to it. When the new code was pre¬ 
sented to the legislature it was rejected and a permanent commis¬ 
sion was appointed to assist in the labors of the legislature to ac¬ 
complish the same end. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


183 


When an attempt was made in 1903 to force through A bill that 
had for its object but one purpose, an additional “$1,000,000 a 
year” collection from the railroads, because, as Gov. La Toilette 
expressed it, “The people want $1,000,000 a year, because that is 
the sum owing,” the conservatives resisted and secured the enact¬ 
ment of a law that provided for a legal assessment of railroad 
property. They did not get the additional $1,000,000 a year until 
1906, but when they did get it they were sustained by the courts 
and it is regularly collected each year now. This was better than 
to go into court with a law that would not have stood the test. 

That much has been accomplished is known by all classes of 
citizens. They know that the assessment of property is not quite 
such a haphazard, unsystematic, illogical process as formerly, be¬ 
cause the local assessors work under supervision of county super¬ 
visors of assessment and the county supervisors are directed in 
their labors by the state tax commission. They know that the cor¬ 
porations pay taxes at the rate charged against other property in 
the state. They know that a graduated and progressive inheritance 
tax has been incorporated into our system. They know that the 
injustice that resulted from the attempt to enforce the old mortgage 
taxation law is a thing of the past. If nothing else has been accom¬ 
plished, this is something and this something is worth while. 

In summing up the results of the legislative and administra¬ 
tive labors of the last twelve years it is found that there is much to 
be done before the taxation system of the state can be said to have 
been perfected. The income of the state has been enormously in¬ 
creased, it is true, but no corresponding reduction in state taxes 
levied upon and collected from the counties has been achieved. 
There is a popular belief that the increase in corporation taxes 
has made it unnecessary to levy state taxes, but this is an error. 
Taxes are still levied for the support of charitable and penal insti¬ 
tutions and for free high schools, graded schools, common schools, 
the university, agricultural college, and normal schools. The in¬ 
crease in corporation taxes and state tax levies in ten year periods 
is illustrated by the following statement compiled from official 
figures found in the reports of the tax commission for the years 
1907 and 1909: 

CORPORATION TAXES. 


1889 .$1,060,560.05 

1809 1,711,387.60 

1908 . 3,992,530.07 

STATE TAX LEVIES. 

1889 . : .$1,207,796.97 

1899 3,709.198.37 

iqo8 .. 2,950,110.87 


In spite of the fact that the corporation payments to the state 
have jumped in ten years from $1,711,387.60 to $3,992,530.07, an 
increase of $2,281,142.47, the state tax levies also have increased 








184 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


$1,240,912.50, a total increase in these two items alone of 
$3,522,054.97. This is in addition to other increases of revenue 
which have more than doubled in the ten years from 1889 to 1908, 
inclusive. The total increase in revenues in 1908 over 1899 was 
$4,229,666.31, or 103.91 per cent. The increase in disbursements 
during the same period, according to the tax commission's tables, 
amounted to 99.85 per cent. The percentage of increase in revenues 
from all sources except taxes for the decade was 126.58; the per¬ 
centage of increase of taxes under the general property tax laws 
was 72.60. 

When, in 1899, Gov. Scofield warned the people of the state 
in a public address that there was danger of collecting more money 
than was actually needed by the state, he had in view just such a 
contingency as is now presented. The state has been liberal in its 
expenditures, the amount increasing from year to year, and the bal¬ 
ances in the treasury also have increased. During the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1908, the disbursements for all purposes, according 
to the reports, amounted to $7,762,771.49, and there was a balance 
in the treasury at the end of the term of $1,546,509.90. 

For the two years ending September 30, 1900, the last term of 
Gov. Scofield, the disbursements of the state for all purposes 
amounted to $7,883,574.89; the disbursements for the biennial term 
ending June 30, 1908, were $14,229,037.78. 

It goes without saying that the expenses of a great state like 
Wisconsin will increase from year to year as the population grows 
and the cost of maintaining public institutions multiplies. The state 
must pay the cost of administering its laws; it must maintain its 
courts; it must care for and educate its defectives; it must maintain 
its schools and colleges, and its university; it must confine its con¬ 
firmed criminals and at least attempt to reform its wayward young 
people and first offenders. And it must pay for all these things. 

But the population of the state has not doubled in ten years. 
All the legitimate demands of the time were reasonably provided 
for ten years ago, and it requires a stretch of the imagination to 
believe that the genuine demands upon the state’s revenues have 
increased approximately 100 per cent in that time. 

One of the principal arguments in favor of reforming the taxa¬ 
tion system was that thereby taxes would be equalized. This did 
not mean that the taxes of corporations and citizens who were not 
paying their just proportion should be raised and those who were 
paying more than their fair share should be maintained at their 
original rate. In the public mind it meant that there should be a 
leveling process, a raising in one place and a corresponding lower¬ 
ing in another until a fair equalization of the burdens of govern¬ 
ment should be reached. It was believed this result could be ap¬ 
proximated. 

To the end that the reader may understand in what departments 
of the state government the increases in expenditures have occurred 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


185 


the following summary of disbursements has been compiled from 
the official reports of the tax commission for the years 1907 and 
1909, three years, 1889, 1899, and 1908, being selected to illustrate 
the abnormal increase of the last decade: 


GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS. 


1889. 

Executive and administrative. .$ 79,264.73 


Judiciary . 88,758.71 

Legislative. 169,139.00 

Boards, commissions, etc. 137,708.94 

Permanent expenses . 766,427.82 

Educational disbursements ... 84,941.14 

Miscellaneous . 209,748.16 

Capitol building commission. 


1899. 

$ 154,932.56 
122,028.94 
200,597.01 
264,870.53 
1,427,653.91 
98,387.96 
143,953.36 


1908. 

$ 171,805.15 

224.307.37 

113.774.37 
793,703.86 

2,174,618.72 

932,034.25 

83,652.58 

406,701.34 


Total 


$1,535,988.50 $2,412,424.27 $4,900,597.64 


DISBURSEMENTS EDUCATIONAL FUNDS. 


University of Wisconsin.$ 133,833.70 $ 390,133.78 $ 895,195.18 

Common schools . 781,344.53 778,689.25 1,575,426.08 

Normal schools . 108,548.77 287,579.82 360,230.67 

Agricultural college . 14,512.26 15,512.34 13,064.52 


Total.$1,038,239.26 $1,471,915.19 

Disbursements fire marshal’s fund. 

Total all disbursements... .$2,574,227.76 $3,884,339.46 


$2,843,916.45 

18,257.40 

$7,762,771.49 























186 


\ 

Political Reform tn Wisconsin. 

CHAPTER XXI. 

An Enormous Increase in Cost of Government. 

In his first message to the legislature in 1901 Gov. La Follette 
inserted a table of receipts and disbursements of the state govern¬ 
ment from 1889 to 1898, inclusive. As the figures found in his 
table do not agree with those printed in the commission’s report 
for the same years the conclusion is natural that they are only ap¬ 
proximately correct, but they will answer the purpose. The gov¬ 
ernor estimated that the increase in expenses for the ten year period 
had been about 50 per cent, and he was alarmed. He said, after 
referring to the table: 

“The above table of aggregate receipts and disbursements for a 
period of years, I believe you will find of value. It shows a steady and 
rapid increase in the cost of state government. While there is abun¬ 
dant evidence of expanding usefulness and of unquestioned public bene¬ 
fits derived from most of the new expenditures incurred by the state, an 
advance of almost 50 per cent in the cost of state government within a 
period of ten years is entitled to high rank among the facts worthy of 
grave consideration in all departments of government.” 

The actual increase in state expenses shown by his figures for 
the period mentioned was about 44 per cent. The increase for the 
ten years from 1899 to - 1908 was 99.85 per cent. If Gov. La Fol¬ 
lette saw reason for grave consideration in the former, there is 
more reason why the people of the state in general and the depart¬ 
ments of government in particular should regard the latter as of 
prime importance. 

A large part of the increase in revenues during the last decade 
has come from corporation taxes, but, in the last analysis, the con¬ 
clusion is inevitable that the masses of the people of the state pay 
those taxes as well as the direct levies upon their property. The 
railroads, for instance, have but one source of revenue. They col¬ 
lect their incomes from the public in the form of passenger fares 
and freight charges. As they are permitted bv law to charge 
enough for their services to pay all expenses, inclusive of taxes, 
and leave a balance of profit to be used in paying dividends, the 
taxes paid to the state are passed along to their patrons. In this 
way the people of the state in which the roads do business pay the 
taxes of the road as well as the direct taxes levied upon their prop¬ 
erty by the state, counties, municipalities, towns, and school dis¬ 
tricts. 

It has been argued by economists that all taxes are finally 
“passed” to the consumer, and this is literally true with respect to 
corporation taxes. It is not entirely true in all cases, however. The 
owner of city property who secures his income from rents can pass 
his taxes to the renter at times. But there are cases where com¬ 
petition with other landlords makes it impossible for him to do so. 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


187 


A vacant house or flat brings in no income and it is frequently im¬ 
possible for owners of urban property to charge enough rent to 
reimburse them for taxes, repairs, insurance, and interest. With 
quasi-public corporations that pay large sums to the state in the 
form of taxes this is not the case. They can and do pass the tax 
charges to their customers. 

For this reason it is plain that the people who pay the taxes in 
the end should scan closely the account of money collected and 
expended by the state administration. It is not the intention here 
to counsel the adoption of a niggardly, parsimonious policy, one 
that would hamper the administrative officers in the discharge of 
their duties, but a wise economy need not spell parsimony; a care¬ 
ful husbanding of the resources of the state does not necessarily- 
mean the cutting off of any useful expense that is of “unquestioned 
public benefit.” 

The published reports of state .receipts and disbursements do 
not convey to the mind of the average reader a clear idea of where 
and how the state’s money is expended. For this reason the fol¬ 
lowing tables have been prepared, the items of expense being classi¬ 
fied or grouped so that a glance will show in what departments of 
the state’s activities the largest amounts have been expended and 
the greatest increases have occurred. The first table shows the dis¬ 
bursements of the executive and administrative, judicial and legis¬ 
lative departments for the three years selected, 1889, 1899, and 
1908: 

EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS. 


1889. 

Executive department .$ 9,325.00 

State department. 27,752.50 

Treasury department . 16,365.00 

Attorney general’s department.. 5,092.00 

Superintendent public instruction 

department . 9,398.03 

Insurance commissioner’s dep... 4,638.90 

Railroad commissioner’s dep— 6,693.30 


1899. 

$ 17,363.21 

42,397.45 
19,897.13 
12,098.84 

24,554.61 

20,408.49 

18,212.83 


Total 


....$ 79,264.73 $ 154,932.56 
JUDICIARY. 


Supreme court .. 
Circuit Court . .. 
State law library 


$ 32,304.00 
51,890.32 
4,564.39 


$ 38,371.93 

76,296.87 
7,360.14 


Total . 


$ 88,758.71 $ 122,028.94 


1908. 

$ 13,738.47 

44,177.83 

19.744.93 

20.813.94 

43,066.94 

30,263.04 


$ 171,805.15 


$ 59,775.26 

153,001.97 
11,530.14 


$ 224,307.37 


















188 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


LEGISLATIVE. 


1889. 


1889-’90. 

1890. 

. 1,029.10 


Biennial 

period . 

.$170,168.10 

1899. 

.$200,597.01 


1900. 

. 6,256.38 


Biennial 

period . 


1907. 

.$165,590.95 


1908. 

. 113,774.37 



Biennial period 


1899-’00. 


$ . $ 


206,853.39 


BOARDS, BUREAUS, COMMISSIONS, ETC. 


Superintendent public property 

and labor . 

State Historical society. 

Bureau labor statistics . 

State land department. 

Dairy and food commission. 

State veterinarian . 

Oil inspection . 

Land protection . 

Pension agent . 

Game and fish wardens. 

Fish culture . 

State board of supervision. 

State board charities and reform 

State board of control. 

State board of health. 

State tax commission. 

State bank examiner . 

State banking department. 

State treasury agent. 

Board of arbitration. 

Free library commission. 

Board of bar examiners. 

Board of immigration. 

State railroad commission. 

Civil service commission. 

Forest wardens . 

Board of forestry . 

Geological and natural history 

survey . 

Grain and warehouse commis¬ 
sion . 

Board of agriculture. 

Inspection of apiaries . 

Commissioners of public print’g. 
Interstate park commission.... 
State board medical examiners. 

State park board . 

Sundry temporary commissions. 

Waterways commission . 

State board canvassers. 


1889. 

$ 43,806.51 $ 
9,800.00 
9,145.20 
14,976.47 
3,490.81 
3,906.68 


5,065.70 

1,657.91 

5,898.02 

14,000.00 

13,116.39 

8,139.46 


4,705.79 


1899. 

65,273.82 $ 
14,181.49 
16,955.61 
27,497.20 
12,984.80 
5,825.60 


4,397.17 


13,095.45 

26,288.61 


23,744.40 

5,277.73 

5,065.83 

10,929.33 


2,360.93 

920.20 

6,189.91 

1,524.59 

2,582.62 


376.01 


9,386.17 


10,013.06 


1907-’08. 


279,365.32 


1908. 

144,506.02 

38,169.04 

41,055.51 

10,064.55 

42,290.37 

65,531.57 

147.12 


5,073.51 

57,051.55 


24,865.74 

15,643.49 

51,470.70 


21,672.30 

4,716.12 

853.54 

35,287.52 

1.429.66 

6.324.67 
65,683.51 
11,426.35 


10.889.95 
25,636.60 

3,500.00 

80.837.96 
577.36 
225.07 

12,304.71 

39.62 

700.00 

9,558.61 

5,957.74 

213.40 


Total , 


$137,708.94 $ 264,870.53 $ 793,703.86 















































































Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 


189 


PERMANENT EXPENSES. 


1889. 

Charitable and penal institutes.$467,328.40 
Maintaining insane in counties. 199,86(3.20 

Acute and chronic insane. 

Wisconsin National guard. 63,692.71 

Bounty on wild animals. 7,985.00 

Agricultural Experiment ass’n. 

Agricultural and industrial so¬ 
cieties . 12,226.60 

County agricultural societies... 15,328.79 
Wisconsin Veterans’ home. 


$ 


1899. 

711,572.11 

390,769.87 

143,479.43 

10,033.00 


25,881.44 

50,265.34 

95,652.72 


1908. 

$1,284,613.30 

434,715.30 

62,205.10 

148,643.74 

24,624.00 

2,763.08 

17,777.24 

85,740.48 

113,536.48 


Total . . 


.$766,427.82 $1,427,653.91 $2,174,618.72 

MISCELLANEOUS. 


Contractors state capitol.$ 26,000.00 

Sundries . 9,227.14 

Printing, publishing, advertising 81,089.65 

Compiling war records . 17,400.96 

Stationery, postage, paper. 15,098.68 

Fuel and light. 16,133.41 

Incidental expenses . 17,726.18 

Miscellaneous . 27,072.14 

Draftsmen. 

Statement real estate sales. 

Expert accountants . 


State historical library building 

fund . 

Sanborn & Berryman’s statutes. 

Barron county fire sufferers. 

Repairs, Ch. 15, laws of 1899... 

Sundry refunds . 

Reporting criminal statistics... 

Prevention San Jose scale. 

Memorial hall . 

Governor’s contingent fund. 

Claims against United States... 

Tax title lands purchased. 

Compiling and publishing town 

laws.. 

Public documents . 

Disbarment proceedings . 

Reviewing assessments . 


$ . $ 


13,256.50 

6,619.26 

16,901.65 

6,604.15 

1,106.45 

1,385.50 

1,060.39 


62,529.00 


1,459.53 


60,000.00 

22,554.00 

10,000.00 

1,992.83 

2,472.63 


31.20 

857.24 

146.18 

2 , 000.00 

3,879.54 

751.32 


3,710.97 

1.802.96 

1,782.13 

4,702.51 


Total . . 


$209,748.16 $ 143,953.36 $ 83,652.58 







































































Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


S 





IDO 


GENERAL FUND EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS. 


Common schools .$ 

University . 

Normal schools . 

Graded schools . 

56,715.30 

1,922.54 

$. 

27,797.25 

2,704.73 

$ 308,109.36 
49,952.82 
259,337.41 
71,500.00 
122.481.01 
39,480.85 

Free high schools. 

Deaf mute instruction in, cities.. , 
County training schools for 
teachers . 

26,303.30 

48,163.11 

19,222.87 

35,433.98 

8,000.00 

5,000.00 

21,701.97 

2,036.85 

9,000.00 

County schools of agric. and do¬ 
mestic science . 



Manual training in high schools. . 
Mining trade school . 


500.00 


Acade'iny science, arts and letters . 
Teachers’ county institutes. 






Total...$ 84,941.14 $ 98,387.96 $ 932,034.25 

TAXES FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND TRUST 

FUND INCOME. 

Common schools .$781,344.53 $ 778,689.25 $1,575,426.08 

University. 133,833.70 390,133.78 895,195.18 

Normal schools . 108,548.77 287,579.82 360,230,67 

Agricultural college . 14,512.26 15,512.34 13,064.52 


Total.$1,038,239.26 $1,471,915.19 $2,843,916.45 

Total disbursements educational 

purposes.$1,123,180.40 $1,570,303.15 $3,775,950.70 

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS EDUCATIONAL FUNDS CLASSIFIED. 

Common schools .$781,344.53 $ 778,689.25 $1,883,535.44 

University. 190,549.00 417,931.03 945,148.00 

Normal schools . 110,471.31 290,284.55 619,568.08 

Miscellaneous . 26,303.30 67,885.98 314,634.66 

Agricultural college . 14,512.26 15,512.34 13,064.52 


Total .$1,123,1S0.40 $1,570,303.15 $3,775,950.70 



/ 


/ 






-* 


/ 











































191 


Taxation Reform in Wisconsin. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

Where Expenses Have Increased. 

The most considerable increase in the cost of government is 
shown by the tables to have been in the maintenance of the educa¬ 
tional institutions, which cost $1,570,303.15 in 1899 and $3,775,- 
950.70 in 1908, an increase of $2,205,647.55. The state paid 
$1,104,846.19 more for the maintenance of its common schools in 
1908 than it did in 1899. This amount was merely collected from 
the taxpayers in the form of a state school tax and then returned 
to the counties on the basis of the school census. The counties 
were required to raise an equal amount in the form of a county 
school tax. 

This method of doing business is not approved by the best au¬ 
thorities, either among the schoolmen or economists. In comment¬ 
ing on this subject in its report of 1903 the tax commission said 
(page 39) : 

“The effect of the mill tax is to make the wealthy counties with a 
relatively smaller school population contribute to the counties having less 
material wealth but rich in the number of school children. The law has 
been in force since 1885, and while the tax was limited by undervaluation 
of assessing officers to $600,000 or thereabouts without material change 
from year to year, its burdens were not felt. It is believed, however, 
that the amount of this tax under the full value assessment is larger 
than required by the best interests of the common schools, and that it 
tends to destroy that healthy local interest which follows where the com¬ 
munity itself is held at least in part responsible for the maintenance of 
the school. During the last year in many country districts no district 
tax was levied, the school being maintained entirely by the school fund 
apportionment, including the mill tax and the corresponding tax levied 
by the county board upon the towns. In some districts the moneys thus 
collected left a surplus in the district treasury. Such a condition has a 
tendency to breed a degree of extravagance, which should be discoun¬ 
tenanced in public affairs.” 

The legislature attempted to correct this manifest mistake of 
policy bv fixing the rate of the school appropriation at seven-tenths 
of a mill. Of this amount $200,000 was taken from the general fund 
and the balance was raised by a tax upon all property except that 
paying a license fee (chapter 313, laws of 1903). In its report 
for 1907 (pages 79 and 80) the tax commission thus commented 
on the situation at that time: 

“With a constantly increasing state assessment the fund thus pro¬ 
vided becomes larger each year. Now that the state assessment has 
reached $2,124,800,000 this 7-10 mill tax, together with the regular 

income of the school fund, amounts to about $1,600,000.” 

********** 

“The tax and its distribution are illogical, wasteful and demoralizing 
in any district where the amounts received from the state and liom the 
corresponding levy by the county board create a laigei fund than the 
needs of the school properly and liberally managed require. 


192 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


It may be said that, so long as the money is collected as a gen¬ 
eral property tax and is subsequently returned to local officers it is 
merely taken from one pocket and put into another, but this is not 
strictly true. The state and county school taxes are paid back to 
the school districts, and the officers of the districts look upon the 
amounts as a species of contribution. They do not collect and ex¬ 
pend the tax directly. In some cases they receive more than they 
pay in the form of state and county school taxes. In any event the 
payment of the tax is made in a roundabout way, and whether 
they receive more or less than they pay, it is too much like getting 
something for nothing—picking money out of the air. 

Two distinct evils grow out of the practice. One is that ten¬ 
dency toward extravagance mentioned by the tax commission; the 
other is a tendenc}^ in the opposite direction where the money re¬ 
ceived falls short of the amount required to run the school as it 
should be run. If, by cutting the teacher’s salary and practicing 
other unwise economies, the expenses of the district can be kept 
within the limit of the sum received from the state and county, the 
school board is too apt to recommend the “passing” of the district 
school tax and the annual meeting will in a majority of cases follow 
the suggestion. In this way the too liberal policy of the state 
operates to the disadvantage of the school. 

Another material increase in disbursements is found in the 
item of boards, bureaus, and commissions. In 1899 the state ex¬ 
pended $264,870.53 for the support of these bodies; in 1908 the 
cost to the state for the same service was $793,703.86, an increase 
of $528,833.33. As the items of which this substantial sum is* 
made up are given in the table in detail comment is unnecessary, 
but one may be allowed to suggest that an increase of more than 
$100,000 in the expenses of the superintendent of public property 
in ten years is a matter worthy of careful consideration. The larg¬ 
est single item of expense in this department of the state's busi¬ 
ness is in labor about the capitol and grounds. 

The expense incidental to maintaining the charitable and penal 
institutions has increased as a natural consequence of the increase 
in the number of inmates of the several institutions. The advance 
in the price of many articles that enter into the cost of living has 
had some influence on the expenses of these institutions during the 
last decade. On the other hand, the larger average population of 
the institutions has operated in most cases to reduce the per capita 
cost of maintenance. According to the report of the board of 
control for the year of 1907, the latest figures available on this 
subject, the average population and per capita cost per week of 
maintenance at the beginning and end of the decade from 1897 to 
1906 was as follows (Wis. Pub. Documents, 1905-1906, vol. 3, 
pages 40 and 44of report of board of control) : 


1 axa.tion Reform in Wisconsin. 


193 


State hospital for insane— 

1897. 

Average Population. 

Per Capita Cost. 

1906. 


«p0.oo 

Northern hospital for insane— 
1897. 


A 

1906. 


"±. i O 

School for deaf— 


O.oO 

1897. 


f\ as 

1906. 


O.'xo 
^ 01 

School for blind— 



1897. 


7 Q4. 

1906. 


7.01 

Industrial school for bovs— 


1897. 

1906. 


3.54 

3.95 

2.89 

3.41 

3.51 

4.56 

State prison— 

1897. 

1906. 

State public school— 

1897. 

1906. 

Home for feeble minded— 


1897. 

1906. 

State reformatorv, Green Bay— 

. 681 

7.08 

3.00 

1901. 

1906. 

. 128 

. 290 

5.33 

2.40 


As shown by the above figures, which are official, the net in¬ 
crease in the average population of the above institutions during 
the decade under consideration was 919. The net increase in the 
cost of maintaining the institutions during the same decade was 
$335,180.29. The net increase in the cost of the same institutions 
for the year 1908 over 1906 was $341,259.51, or $6,079.22 more than 
for the ten previous years.* 

It is understood that in computing the cost per capita per week 
of maintaining inmates in the state institutions the board has not 
included the cost of administration at the several institutions, the 
“maintenance expenses’ 7 alone being figured. For instance, the 
board reports an average population of 681 at the home for the 
feeble minded, maintained at a weekly per capita cost of $3. For 
fifty-two weeks of that year this would make a total cost of main¬ 
tenance of $106,236. In the statement for the year 1906 printed 
in the tax commission’s report for 1907, page 245, the cost of that 
institution to the taxpayers of the state is given as $151,233.86, 
which would mean a balance for administration and improvements 
above the per capita cost of maintaining inmates of $44,997.86. 

Another matter, small in itself, yet showing the tendency of 
the state’s disbursements to steadily increase, is the item of “bounty 
on wild animals.” Wisconsin has done much during the last 
twenty years to reduce the extent of its wild areas. Railroads have 
been built through the forests; wagon roads have been opened from 




















194 


V 

Political Reform tn Wisconsin. 


the railroad stations in all directions and settlers have multiplied 
until there are few counties in the northern half of the state that 
can be said to be comfortable abiding places for the kind of wild 
animals on which the state pays a bounty. There are men who 
have lived in northern Wisconsin for more than a quarter of a 
century and who have spent considerable time in the woods who 
have never seen or heard a wolf, a wild cat, or any other obnoxious 
wild animal, and yet the amount of money paid as bounty on 
wild animals increased from $7,985 in 1889 to $24,624 in 1908. 
Why ? 

It may be explained here that the hunting license money does 
not appear in the accounts herewith printed for the reason that it 
is a special fund. The account is kept in a separate book in the 
offices of the secretary of state and state treasurer, but in making 
up the reports from which the figures in this review are taken it 
was not thought necessary to give an accounting of this fund. 


1 ax at ion Reform in Wisconsin. 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

Uncalled for Extravagance. 


195 


George Curtis, Jr., a member of the tax commission and the 
one member who lias served continuously since the organization 
of the temporary commission in 1897', delivered an address before 
the Wisconsin Municipal league on Sept. 3, 1908, which address 
is printed in the official report of the tax commission for the year 
1909, as appendix C, pages 149 to 1?0. This address is a valuable 
contribution to the literature on the subject of taxation and it 
should be widely read. For the purposes of this review, however, 
references will only be made to the chapter on “Municipal Ex¬ 
travagance.” Mr. Curtis quotes from Prof. Seligman of Columbia 
university, the eminent economist, as follows: 

“The growth of democracy has brought with it new conceptions as to 
the duty and function of government. Expenditures which would have 
appalled our fathers seem to us reasonable and necessary. To hope to 
remove the problem of taxation by cutting down expenditures is vain. 
Economy we must, indeed, have, but not parsimony. The ideal of ex¬ 
penditure is not to spend little, but to spend well. Savages spend little 
or nothing, but are none the less savages. Democracy must spend much 
—will spend even more—but it should spend intelligently. With the 
growth of civilization, expenditures must increase.” 

In commenting on this paragraph Commissioner Curtis says: 

“Prof. Seligman should not be understood as implying that a com¬ 
munity is justified in spending all that it can ‘spend intelligently,’ or all 
that it can ‘spend well,’ or that the only requisites in public expenditures 
are to avoid paying too high a price for the things purchased, and stop 
the leak from grafting and other criminality. lie doubtless believes, as 
most of us believe, that in addition to these observances there must be 
constantly exercised a sound and statesmanlike judgment as to what 
are, and what are not virtual necessities, from the viewpoint of public 
good, having reference always to the condition or potentiality of the 
purse from which the funds must be drawn—much the same sort of 
judgment that is essential to success in the conduct of important com¬ 
mercial and industrial enterprises; and moreover that this judgment 
must be exercised with a couarge which will not flinch or quail before 
specious persuasion or popular clamor. This is easy to point out and to 
talk about, but in the light of past experience it seems very hard to 
secure.” 

The taxes collected in Wisconsin in the year 1908 for state, 
county, municipal, township, and school purposes, amounted in the 
aggregate to approximately $26,000,000. Every dollar of this 
money came in one form or another from the pockets of the people 
of the state. The corporation taxes, the peddlers’ license money, 
the collections from saloon keepers in the form of licenses, were 
all paid by the people no less than the direct taxes for the support 
of the schools and for building roads and bridges. 

Where there is collected from the people one dollar more than 
is needed for the economical administration of the laws and the 


196 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


support of the state institutions injustice is inevitable. The state 
has no more right to take from its citizens money that is not actually 
needed for its purposes than a corporation or a private business 
enterprise has to practice extortion because it finds itself in a posi¬ 
tion to demand and enforce the payment of an unjust claim. The 
measure of the state’s right to levy and collect taxes is the measure 
of its actual needs. This fact is fundamental. 

Municipal luxury, the erection of public buildings for show 
purposes mainly, albeit an excuse may be framed that the buildings 
are needed for office purposes, is municipal extravagance. Luxuri¬ 
ous display in municipalities and states had its birth in ancient 
times when warlike peoples brought back from their predatory ex¬ 
cursions the spoils of their enemies and erected palaces, temples, 
public baths, and laid out magnificent gardens to proclaim the 
glory of their arms and to perpetuate their fame. Not only did the 
loot secured by conquest enter into the construction of the mag¬ 
nificent cities of olden times, but the sweat and blood of slaves 
cemented the bricks of which the walls were built. Ninevah, Baby¬ 
lon, Antioch, Rome, all grew to greatness through rapine, murder, 
extortion, injustice; all flourished for a time in luxury; all suc¬ 
cumbed to stronger peoples in the end. 

While it is true that a democracy must spend much, there is no 
need for a modern state or municipality to attempt to emulate even 
in a weak and puny way the luxury of the ancients. The demands 
of public health and convenience require the initial expenditure of 
large sums of money for the purposes of supplying pure water, a 
perfect drainage system, for cleaning the streets and for the disposal 
of garbage and refuse. The demands of the future require that 
the children of this generation shall be educated and fitted to assume 
the responsibilities of citizenship. The defectives and criminal 
classes must be cared for; courts must be provided to interpret and 
executive and administrative officers to enforce the laws. But 
when this is accomplished the purposes of a democratic govern¬ 
ment are served. 

The fact should be kept in mind always that the people pay 
the bills and it is the people’s purse, not the public treasury, that 
suffers when an unnecessary expense is incurred. State pride and 
municipal pride are commendable and worthy of encouragement, 
but they should never be permitted to serve as an excuse for an 
unnecessary tax levy. The hanging gardens of Babylon were the 
pride of the Babylonian kings and nobles, but the people who paid 
the bills had no occasion to contemplate them with pleasure or 
satisfaction. 




PART THREE. 


/ 


RAILWAY REGULATION" 



CHAPTER I. 

The* Early Period op Agitation - . 

The lawful right of the state to regulate common carriers, even 
to the point of fixing rates that may be charged for services ren¬ 
dered either in carrying passengers or freight, was early established 
in Wisconsin. There never has been a dispute on this point since 
the litigation resulting from the enactment of the historic “Potter 
law” in 1874 was decided in favor of that principle. (Attorney 
General vs. R. R. Comp., 35 Wis., 425.) The opinion of the Wis¬ 
consin Supreme Court in this case was written by the late Chief 
Justice Ryan, and it was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the 
United States. 

At the same time, the right of the common carriers to exact 
from their patrons a rate of freight and passenger charges that will 
enable them to do business at a profit was also early established. In 
1870 Chief Justice Dixon laid down this principle in an opinion 
deciding the case of Whiting vs. Sheboygan R. R., in which he said: 
“The power of the legislature to regulate the tolls and charges of 
such companies is in itself a limited one; if not in a constitutional 
sense, certainly in the sense of morality and justice. If there be 
not an express, there is certainly an implied, obligation and prom¬ 
ise, on the part of the state, never to reduce the tolls and charges 
below a standard which will be reasonable, or which will afford a 
fair and adequate remuneration and return upon the amount of 
capital actually invested.” 

These two principles, which are fundamental, being established, 
the only opening for controversy with respect to the relations that 
should exist between the state and the common carriers has been 
one of policy. The question has been, how far ought the state to 
go in its efforts to regulate and supervise the business of the railroad 
corporations ? 

It is not the intention here to go into details concerning the 
arguments used by the supporters of the two sides of the proposi¬ 
tion to regulate railroad rates. It is sufficient to say that the advo- 


197 





198 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


cates of radical legislation were manifestly firm believers in the 
total depravity of all corporations, while the conservatives were 
afraid that a political commission, were it to attempt to fix rates in 
advance, would so bungle its work that disaster would result to the 
interests of the carriers and patrons alike. The former class argued 
that the only safe way of avoiding extortion and unjust exactions 
in the form of freight and passenger rates was to place the rate 
making power in the hands of a commission made up of state offi¬ 
cers ; the latter maintained that the railroad traffic men were better 
equipped to fix rates, and the only office that could safely be en¬ 
trusted to a commission was that of hearing complaints and review¬ 
ing rates. The radicals contended that,it was for the interest of 
the common carriers to charge high rates, thereby increasing their 
profits; the conservatives replied that the interests of the railroad 
corporations were identical with those of their patrons, and that 
they would fix rates that would encourage business, thereby in¬ 
creasing their tonnage. All of these arguments were elaborated to 
the degree of exhaustion during the last period of agitation which 
extended from 1895 to 1902 in a preliminary skirmish, and from 
1902 to 1905 in a pitched.battle. 

The two distinct, well defined periods of agitation against the 
railroad corporations in this state were separated by fully fifteen 
years of comparative quiet. The first period culminated in the 
enactment of the “Potter law,” chapter 273, laws of 1874, and 
closed with the repeal of that statute two years later. The second 
period began with the election of A. R. Hall to the assembly in 1891, 
followed by the adoption, in 1902, by the then governor, R. M. 
La Follette, of the railroad regulation proposition fathered by A. 
R. H^ll and the injection into that proposition of several radical 
features borrowed from Iowa and Texas. It ended in the passage 
of a modified, rationalized railroad commission bill in 1905. 

The first period was characterized by a wave of popular preju¬ 
dice against the railroad companies that swept over the state and 
carried everything before it. The election in 1873 was on the face 
of it a democratic victory. As a matter of fact it was the triumph 
of an element that had nothing in common with the regular, Jeffer¬ 
sonian democracy of that time. The men who were in the saddle 
in 1874 in this state would have been called “populists” a dozen 
years later. Some of them happened to hold prominent positions 
in the democratic party and they ingratiated themselves into the 
ranks of the grangers and captured that organization, making of it 
an adjunct to the democratic party. The victory at the polls was 
a populist victory, in fact, although the populist party had not 
yet been born. 

During the second period the prejudice against the railroads was 
not so marked among the people of the state, notwithstanding the 


Railway Regulation. 


199 


strenuous efforts on the part of Gov. La Follette and his personal 
followers to light anew the fires of popular hate and rancor. There 
was no widespread demand oil the part of the people at that time 
for radical legislation aimed at the railway corporations, and it was 
impossible in 1903 and 1905 to carry the legislature off its feet and 
repeat the legislative blunder of 1874. 

One of the noteworthy incidents of the first period of anti¬ 
railroad agitation was a report prepared by a legislative committee 
in 1874 and printed in the Assembly Journal of that session. The 
committee was composed of members of both houses, Senators F. W. 
von Cotzhausen and A. E. Bleekman for the senate and Messrs. 
H. W. Sawyer, Michael Johnson, and D. L. Bancroft, for the as¬ 
sembly, and it was known as the “joint committee on tariffs and 
taxation.” It was charged with the duty of investigating both the 
subject of railway rates and taxation—a somewhat comprehensive 
task for a legislative committee—with instructions to report by 
bill, the intention being to settle the railway rate controversy and 
perfect the general taxation system at the same time. 

The committee did not agree on a unanimous report, as Senator 
von Cotzhausen was then, as always, in favor of the ad valorem 
taxation of railroad property and he could find few supporters at 
the time for his proposition to return to that system. But an agree¬ 
ment was reached on the subject of railroad rate regulation, the 
majority report on that head being written by Senator von Cotz¬ 
hausen and signed by Assemblymen Sawyer (Judge H. W. Sawyer, 
of Hartford, Washington county), Michael Johnson of Dane county, 
and Senator Bleekman of Monroe county. 

The peculiarity of this report is that it is sound doctrine today, 
although it was written during a period of violent anti-railway 
agitation and at a time when the railroad business in this state 
had barely begun to develop. It was written and signed by demo¬ 
crats of the old school and received the indorsement of certain 
other democrats of the same kind who happened to be members 
of the legislature in that so called “granger year.” Although this 
report was not accepted as good law and sound doctrine at‘that 
time, thirty years later the principles laid down in that public docu¬ 
ment were indorsed by a Wisconsin legislature. The legislature of 
1874 was determined to take over the rate making power absolutely, 
although its committee could see no virtue in the attempt to “rem¬ 
edy the evil by legally fixed, inflexible rules.” The legislature of 
1905 found a way to secure fair dealing and justice between shipper 
and carrier without attempting to establish a system of rates of 
an arbitrary character based solely upon weight, bulk, and distance 

hauled. . 

It should be remembered that in 1874 the traffic business had 

not been reduced to an exact science, nor has that end been attained 


200 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


% * 

at this late clay after thirty-five years’ additional experience. The 
work is a complicated one, requiring the constant service of ap¬ 
proximately 10,000 trained traffic officers to do the business for the 
300 railroad organizations in this country. The best of these men 
acknowledge freely that the ideal system of freight rates, at the 
same time mathematically, ethically, and economically correct and 
unimpeachable, has yet to be framed. Where one or two of these 
requirements are met, there is default in the other. How much 
less likely, then, is a legislative committee to solve this complicated 
problem. The committee of 1874 did not feel competent to under¬ 
take the task. They were content to advise that steps be taken to 
prevent the exaction of rates and tolls that were demonstrably ex¬ 
orbitant and excessive. In view of the situation at the time the 
following excerpts from the report in question (Assembly Journal, 
1874, page 423) is of interest: 

“The legislature has full power and control over railroad companies 
in this state. Under section 1, article XI of our constitution, any general 
law or special act granting corporate powers may be altered or repealed 
at pleasure. 

“All corporations, created or operating under grant from this state, 
are conclusively presumed to have accepted their charters and corporate 
franchises in view of this constitutional reservation. No plea of charter 
or contract rights with us can reasonably arise—as in Illinois and other 
states where a constitutional safeguard like ours (until of late) does 
not exist. 

“The people of this commonwealth are therefore not at the mercy of 
the railroads—and consequently, with us there is no cause for alarm! 

“It follows from the above that the power of the state over these 
corporations even extends to financial matters, and your committee enter¬ 
tains no doubt that it is within the province of the legislature to regu¬ 
late tariffs—yea, that it is its duty to do so whenever the rates and tolls 
exacted are exorbitant and oppressive. 

“The few weeks allowed your committee—while at the same time 
overburdened with other legislative duties—have not enabled them to 
give this subject of tariff as thorough an investigation as the complicated 
nature thereof evidently requires. The most intricate questions con¬ 
stantly arise, which seem almost to make it impossible, by law, to regu¬ 
late these matters without doing injustice to either the one or the other 
side. That there is just cause to complain of oppressive rates in a 
number of instances no one doubts; but how to remedy the evil by legally 
fixed, inflexible rules, is as yet a mystery. Our sister states have been 
experimenting more or less the last years, yet we hardly hear of a per¬ 
ceptible change to the better. 

“Then, again, it ought to be borne in mind that rates, though high, 
are not necessarily exorbitant. Whether exorbitant, unfair and op¬ 
pressive, depends not upon their height; the true criterion is, whether 
the same are in just proportion to the actual and bona fide capital 
employed by the carrier in carrying on his business. On this capital— 
but not on watered stock—corporations are entitled, first of all, to a fair 
and even liberal return.” 

The committee then reported that it was not prepared to intro¬ 
duce a bill regulating tariffs, and continued: 


Railway Regulation. 


201 


“But we recommend that a board of commissioners be created, con¬ 
sisting of three to be appointed by the governor, with the consent and 
approval of the senate, whose duty it shall be to examine into the 
condition of all railroad, express and telegraph companies in the state, 
and their mode and manner of doing business; to collect information 
and statistics relating to tariffs and taxation in this and other states; 
to inform itself as to all laws regulating transportation and charges by 
carriers, and the decisions of the courts thereupon; and which board 
of commissioners shall be intrusted with such power and authority as 
in the performance of its various duties, and in furtherance of the ends 
and objects of its creation, may be necessary or from time to time be 
delegated by the legislature; so that, after full investigation, the next 
or future legislatures may understanding^ act and adopt such rules, 
regulations and restrictions as, with proper regard to all interests, the 
public welfare may seem to require.” 


■A 


l 


/ 


202 Political Reform in Wisconsin. 

CHAPTEE II. 

The Potter Bill Passed. 

The legislature of 1874 provided for the appointment of a com¬ 
mission, but it was not such a commission as was recommended in 
the report of the joint committee. The committee, in fact, intro¬ 
duced a bill in each house, designed to carry into effect the recom¬ 
mendations incorporated in their report. These bills, No. 206S, 
and No. 466A, were duplicates. They were introduced by Senator 
von Cotzhausen in the upper and Judge Sawyer in the lower house. 
But these bills were sidetracked for the Potter bill. 

No one appears to know where the Potter bill came from. E. 
L. D. Potter was a state senator from the Twenty-fifth district and 
lived at Wautoma, Waushara county. He was a lawyer and had 
no technical knowledge of the railroad business. It was freely 
stated at the time, and frequently has been reiterated since, that 
Senator Potter did not have the information at hand to enable him 
to frame a bill like the one he succeeded in having substituted 
for the committee bill. 

At all events, he had the bill in his possession and he succeeded 
in having it substituted for assembly bill No. 466, the one intro¬ 
duced by Judge Sawyer, for the records show that, the assembly 
bill of that number passed both houses and became a law. The 
legislative records at that time were not as carefully kept as they 
are now and the task of following a measure through the journals 
of the two houses is an extremely difficult one. The character of 
the law, chapter 273, laws of 1874, sufficiently explains the mo¬ 
tives that prompted its enactment. In his “Historical Eeminis- 
cences and Eeflections,” printed in pamphlet form recently, Senator 
von Cotzhausen says, page 32: 

“* * * under pressure of popular passion, the ‘Potter bill,’ 

which fixed a certain tariff for all classes of commodities and distances, 
met with favor in both houses and passed by an overwhelming vote. It 
was not discussed in its details by our committee at all, because all of 
us were lacking the practical knowledge of dealing with such a compli¬ 
cated subject. Who was the real author of the bill has always remained 
a profound secret. It was crowded upon the calendar at a rather late 
day of the session. It was named after the senator from the Twenty- 
fifth district, who by profession was a lawyer. It emanated, beyond 
doubt, from some one quite familiar with matters of transportation, but 
the man never came to the surface; no argument was ever presented 
in committee or on the floor in support of its detail enactments; the bill 
passed both houses almost blindly, because it aimed at the railroads.” 

The Potter law was a distance tariff measure, pure and simple. 
It fixed the classifications of freight and prescribed maximum 
rates that might be charged for transporting freight on a distance 
basis. For instance: Class D covered “grain in carload lots” and 
the maximum rate for that class was: 


Railway Regulation. 


203 


4 4 * 


fivo miip* *,nH 0 L e f XCeedin ^ G C ? ltS per 100 pouuds for the first twenty- 
? 1 « ’ nd 110t excee ^ing 4 cents per 100 pounds for the second 

twenty-five miles and not exceeding 2 cents per 100 pounds for each 
additional twenty-hve miles or fractional part thereof, unless said frac¬ 
tional pa it shall be less than thirteen miles, in which case the rate shall 

•i Ceilt !° r said fra ctional part, unless the whole distance be 
over 200 miles, when no greater rate than i/ 2 cent per 100 pounds shall 
be received for each twenty-five miles over said first mentioned distance.” 


The law also provided for the appointment of a commission 
made up of three members who were to enforce its provisions. The 
railroad companies protested against its enforcement and appealed 
to the courts, but the right of the legislature to enact such a law was 
sustained both in the Supreme Court of the state and the United 
States and the rates fixed by the statute were put into force and 
effect. 

The result of this experiment is well known. The business of 
the state was demoralized. # The flame of passion and prejudice 
fanned to a white heat by fanatics and demagogues, began to cool. 
The people had asked for a reform and they had been given virtual 
ruin. All development was stopped because the railroads discon¬ 
tinued their work of extension. They could not do business under 
the conditions prescribed. So far as local roads were concerned, 
roads that depended for patronage almost entirely on business 
within the state, they faced bankruptcy and one, later known as the 
Lake Shore road, was sold by order of the court for failure to pay 
interest. 

An incident occurred during this time, while the Potter law was 
in effect, in fact, which shows how important is an understanding 
between the industries of a state and the transportation lines. The 
facts relating to this incident may be found in the stenographic re¬ 
port of an offhand address delivered by former Gov. W. D. Hoard 
at a meeting of the Wisconsin Dairymen’s Association held at Fond 
du Lac Feb. 11, 1903, and printed in the annual report of that body 
for the year 1903, pages 15 to 21 inclusive. 

In his address Mr. Hoard was led into a reminiscent mood by 
recalling that one of the earliest meetings of the association was 
held in Fond du Lac, and he then called up from memory some 
of the struggles through which the association had passed in its 
youth. “Take these thirty-one years,” he said. “Why, you can’t 
think, unless you can remember, what a contrast there is today, with 
all this broad and pulsing movement of energy in the state of Wis¬ 
consin, over the situation as it stands now and as it stood when I 
came up here as secretary of this Wisconsin Dairymen’s Association 
to hold its second meeting, thirty years ago.” 

Mr. Hoard then went on to tell how the association, at his re¬ 
quest, permitted him to go to Chicago to try to interest railroad 
men in the development of the dairy industry in this state. He 
could see with a prophetic eye to what extent the dairy industry 


204 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


could be developed if ways and means were provided for getting 
the product to market. Wisconsin cheesemakers were then paying 
a rate of 2 1-2 cents a pound on cheese from Wisconsin to New 
York, and the industry was languishing. He went to Chicago at 
his own expense and for two days he wandered from one railroad 
office to another without results until he succeeded in getting an 
interview with William Chandler, one of the officers of an impor¬ 
tant line. Continuing, he said: 

“Well, I felt angry at the way the railroad people didn’t and 
wouldn’t see this thing, and I shot into that man’s office and I said, ‘Mr. 
Chandler, I come here representing 3,000,000 pounds of cheese that 
wants a quick and safe and cheap outlet to the east, and I want to know 
what you are going to do about it?’ He wheeled and looked at me, and 
he says, ‘Who are you?’ I said, ‘My name is W. D. Hoard, and I am 
secretary of the Wisconsin Dairymen’s association, and they sent me 
here, and we have about 3,000,000 pounds of cheese in the state, and it 
wants to get out of the state. I want to know what you will do about 
it.’ ‘Well,’ he says, ‘we will do most anything you say if you have got 
that amount of cheese. What do you want?’ I said, ‘We pay 2 y 2 cents 
a pound to get this cheese to New York. We are shipping it in poor cars 
and our folks don’t know anything—any of us know but little, there is a 
vast amount of ignorance in the way, and we want you to come up there. 
There isn’t one man in a thousand ever saw a refrigerator car. You 
have just commenced to use them. I want you to send up a car to 
Watertown to that dairy board of trade, and come up yourself and 
explain to those cheese people. Then I want you to make a rate of 1 
cent a pound from anywhere in Wisconsin to New York.’ He, straight¬ 
ened back and he said, ‘Is there anything else you want?’ I said, ‘Mr. 
Chandler, I can see with the eye of prophecy that if you will do that 
thing it will put millions of dollars into your pocket. All that is needed 
is to take this obstruction out of the channel, and the cow will take care 
of the rest. Let us have a chance to move this cheese out of Wisconsin.’ 
‘Well,’ Mr. Chandler says, ‘I will be there.’ Well, he sent this car up 
to Watertown and Chester Hazen and a number of other men, I got 
them all to come down there, and he explained to us what he would do 
and how we would stop the car—if one factory had only half a load he 
would stop the car. If we would ice the car he would see to the other 
operation of it. That was away back in 1875. He made the rate 1 cent 
a pound, and, do you know, the thing began to move and move.” 


Railway Regulation. 


205 


CHAPTER III. 


The Two Systems Compared. 


Mr. Hoard’s success marked the beginning of the system of 
concentration and commodity rates on cheese, butter and other 
dairy products, and it illustrates the difference in results when 
patrons deal directly with the transportation companies in an in¬ 
telligent manner and when the attempt is made to fix rates by law 
and manage transportation companies through political bodies. The 
concentration and commodity system in Wisconsin had its birth 
in that first refrigerator car sent to Watertown and in the 1 cent 
rate to New York, together with the privilege of stopping the car 
en route from place to place along the line of road in Wisconsin 
to pick up a load. 

The outcome of this experiment has been that today Wisconsin 
makes more cheese, more butter, and more condensed milk than 
any other one state in the union. This last year, 1909, it is esti¬ 
mated that the dairy products of Wisconsin amounted in the ag¬ 
gregate to $68,000,000 in value. The development of the dairy 
industry has restored fertility to the worn out farms of 1875. 
Farmers in Wisconsin were facing ruin when Mr. Hoard went to 
Chicago to secure a 1 cent rate on cheese to New York; they are 
now prosperous agriculturists engaged in diversified farming, and 
the money in Wisconsin banks is mostly farmers’ money. And the 
commodity and concentration rates that contributed almost wholly 
to this development were the result of negotiation, not statute law. 

At the same time, the development of the industry has operated 
to still further reduce rates. Nov. 16, 1909, the rates on cheese 
and butter from Wisconsin points to New York were as follows: 


CHEESE. 

Less than 
Carloads, carloads, 
per cwt. per cwt. 


Richland Center . 

CnlamiriP . 

.$ .72 

.70 

$ .82 
.80 

Monroe . 

.69 

.75 

Kiel . 

.65 

.67 

Plvmmifh . 

.60 

.62 

Milwaukee . 



BUTTER. 



Carloads, 

Less than 
carloads, 


per cwt. 

per cwt. 

Richland Center . 

.$ .92 

$1.00 

Calamine . 


.99 

Monroe. 

Kiel . 

.90 

.9514 

.81 

.84 

Plymouth. 

.75 .77 

.65 any quantity. 














206 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 

■e 

But that is not all. Wisconsin can now land cheese on the docks 
at Liverpool, England, for less than 1 cent a pound. The rate 
from Bichland Center, the highest, is about 92 cents per hundred¬ 
weight; from Milwaukee, the lowest, is about 75 cents per hun¬ 
dredweight, or 3-4 of a cent a pound. And all this grew out of the 
negotiations between shippers and transportation companies and 
the farms of Wisconsin received the benefit. 

The results of the first attempt in Wisconsin to regulate trans¬ 
portation companies by arbitrarily fixing their rates by law can be 
briefly set forth. In his first message to the legislature in 1896 Gov. 
Ludington took occasion to explain what the Potter law had accom¬ 
plished in the way of reform. Gov. Harrison Ludington was a 
practical business man and he pictured conditions as he found them. 
He had been elected over Gov. Taylor, the reform granger governor, 
and he had reason to believe the legislature to which his message 
was sent to be read was disposd to hear and heed reason and common 
sense. Also, he was faced by a condition, not a theory, as President 
Cleveland remarked on a memorable occasion, and the condition 
required that remedial action be taken by the legislature. As a rea¬ 
son for asking that a remedy be applied the governor explained: 

“The present condition of the railway interests of the state and the 
existing laws affecting that system are earnestly recommended to the 
consideration of the legislature. With the exception of the line from 
Portage to Stevens Point (a portion of the line to aid which the state 
received a large grant), which is now in progress of construction, no 
railways are being built within the limits of the state. While the central 
and eastern portions are well supplied with these facilities, the south¬ 
western and northern portions are almost wholly without them. None 
of the companies owning or operating lines within the state have paid 
dividends to their stockholders for the last two years. The line from 
Milwaukee to Manitowoc and thence to Appleton has recently been sold 
under judicial proceedings growing out of a failure to pay interest on 
the first mortgage bonds, those citizens and municipal corporations of the 
state who have contributed largely to its construction losing their 
investment.” 

After referring to the Potter law and disclaiming any intention 
to question the right of the state to regulate railroad corporations 
within reasonable and proper limits, the right having been affirmed 
by the Supreme Court, Gov. Ludington continued: 

“It can not be denied that the existing laws, passed in the exercise 
of this power, have either justly or unjustly impaired the credit of the 
state and of its individual citizens in the commercial and financial 
centers of the world. With immense resources undeveloped and a con¬ 
sequent need of capital from sources where it is in excess, the people find 
capital repelled by legislation which would seem to be so far in conflict 
with the rights of capital as to put the best interests of the people them¬ 
selves at hazard.” 

The result of the conditions so clearly explained by Gov. Luding¬ 
ton was that the legislature repealed the Potter law and legislative 
made freight rates came to an end in Wisconsin for all time, al- 


Railway Regulation. 


207 


though an attempt to revive that system was again made in 1903 
and 1905. In place of three commissioners provision was made for 
the election of one commissioner, whose duties were administrative 
in character. A Wisconsin classification and a maximum rate were 
established and laws were enacted, which were amended and 
strengthened from time to time, giving the commissioner super¬ 
visory powers over railway corporations. For twenty-nine years the 
system of railway regulation then established was continued in 
this state. The character of the supervision depended largely upon 
the ability, industry and moral strength of the commissioner elected 
by the people. It goes without saying that some of the commis¬ 
sioners were strong, while others were weak. 


208 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER IV. 

A. R. Hall Begins His Crusade. 

The second period of agitation against the railroads in Wisconsin 
began with the election of A. R. Hall to the assembly from Dunn 
county in 1891. Mr. Hall had acquired experience in the Minne¬ 
sota. legislature, where he had served several terms, and he soon 
came to be acknowledged as a master parliamentarian. To his 
experience and ability he united patience and tenacity of a high 
order and these qualities equipped him admirably for the long and 
arduous contest which he waged for the anti-railroad cause, a 
contest that was preliminary to the pitched battle led by Robert 
M. La Follette when he came to the governorship in 1901. 

Mr. Hall began his skirmish by accusing the railroad companies 
of evading a portion of their just taxes. As already has been ex¬ 
plained in a previous chapter of this review, he demanded an ex¬ 
amination into the sufficiency of the taxes paid by the railroad 
corporations in 1891, and again in 1893. During this time he 
did not ask that the state avail itself of the right to fix freight rates 
in advance and prescribe in what manner all the details of the busi¬ 
ness of the corporations should be managed, but he was progressing 
toward that point. As a matter of fact, even in his resolutions on 
the taxation question and in his reports as a committeeman to 
the legislature, he did comment on the revenues of railroad com¬ 
panies and attempt to show that the freight rates collected enabled 
them to earn large profits on the capital invested. 

In the meantime other states, Iowa in particular, had been ex¬ 
perimenting with rate regulation by adopting the only system pos¬ 
sible where states establish rates through commissions appointed 
for that purpose—the distance tariff. Under this system the de¬ 
termining factors considered by the state’s officers in fixing rates 
are (a) distance hauled; (b) weight; (c) bulk; (d) classification. 
The rates thus established are arbitrary and inflexible. The needs 
of an industry or community can not be considered. The whole 
problem is reduced to a simple mathematical computation. Trade 
can not be fostered; railroad companies can not take steps to de¬ 
velop tonnage along their lines by adopting a system of rates that 
will place all producers on an equal footing; the manufacturers 
and farmers near the markets must be permitted to enjoy their 
geographical advantage over those living at a distance because a 
distance tariff, while it meets the demand for mathematical accu¬ 
racy, admits of no adjustment that may be required by economic or 
industrial conditions. 

The Potter law of 1874 was a distance tariff law of the most 
crude and illogical character and it did not take long to demon¬ 
strate that the transportation business of the state could not be 


Railway Regulation. 


209 


conducted under its provisions to the satisfaction of either the rail¬ 
roads or their patrons. Every indication pointed to the fact that, 
if that law were to be continued in force, the enormous natural 
resources of the state would lie idle for all time simply because 
they could not be developed under distance tariff conditions. 

It is true that a state can not prescribe rates to be charged on 
interstate traffic and that a large percentage of the transportation 
business of a state like Wisconsin is interstate business. It has been 
estimated that no more than 20 per cent of the freight carried in 
this state is subject to state regulation. But, where a state draws 
a line at its borders and says that all business transacted inside that 
line must submit to certain arbitrary and inelastic rules and 
rates, the carriers are in a measure forced to recognize that line, 
as they did in the cases of Iowa and Texas, making their interstate 
rates to the line and adding local rates for the state. 

In 1905 A. B. Hall introduced in the legislature his first rail¬ 
road commission bill, or bills, for there were two of them, Ho. 146A, 
and Ho. 148A. The first was “A bill to establish a board of rail¬ 
road commissioners, prescribe their qualifications, fix their salaries, 
and for the appointment of a secretary of such board and Jo fix his 
salary.” The second was “A bill to regulate railway corporations 
and other common carriers in this state, and to define the powers 
and duties of the board of railroad commissioners in relation to the 
same, and to prevent and punish extortion and unjust discrimina¬ 
tion in the rates charged for the transportation of passengers and 
freight on railroads in this state, and to prescribe the mode of pro¬ 
cedure and rules of evidence in relation thereto, and to repeal all 
laws in force in direct conflict with this act.” These bills were 
both introduced in the assembly by Mr. Hall on Jan. 29, 1895. 
(Page 106 Assembly Journal.) 

It was in connection with these bills that Mr. Hall played a 
trick on the opposition that took them by surprise. While the bills 
were pending he prepared circular letters explaining the purpose 
of the bills and mailed them to every township and election pre¬ 
cinct in the state asking that a referendum vote be taken at the 
annual spring election on the matter. Blanks were furnished for 
recording the vote and tickets for and against the measures were 
also supplied. 

All this work was done secretly, the only man taken into his . 
confidence at first being Assemblyman James 0. Davidson, now 
governor. These two gentlemen worked behind locked doors for 
several nights until they were worn out with fatigue, and they then 
took into their counsel as an assistant a committee clerk in whose 
discretion Mr. Davidson had confidence,. and the work of folding 
and addressing the circulars, blanks and tickets was then completed. 
The time selected for mailing the circulars was well chosen, for 
those who received them were given an opportunity to present them 


J 


210 Political Reform in Wisconsin. 

*to the voters on town meeting day, while the men who would nat¬ 
urally be opposed to the bills were not given time to organize their 
forces to vote against the indorsement. 

In the meantime the opposition had been busy circulating peti¬ 
tions against the measures, and their labors had been successful. 
Shortly after the introduction of the bills word was sent out that 
Mr. Hall was endeavoring to secure the passage of a rate regulation 
law, and the business men of the state became active. On April 9, 
the day the two bills came up for indefinite postponement on re¬ 
port of the committee on railroads, to which committee they had 
been referred, there were on file in the assembly 82 petitions for and 
338 against the measures. 

But the referendum vote had also come in on that day, reports 
having been received from 330 polling places at which 30,853 votes 
had been cast in favor of the bills and 587 against them. Of 
course, where a vote is taken in this informal, voluntary manner, 
the reports were not complete in all details. In some cases only 
the affirmative vote was given in the report; in others the state¬ 
ment was made that the vote was “unanimous;” the total number 
of votes cast being omitted. The records of these memorials are 
printed on the Assembly Journal, pages 905 to 913 inclusive. 

As has been said, the railroad committee of the assembly re¬ 
ported the Hall bills for indefinite postponement. This report was 
made on March 28 before the referendum vote had been taken (page 
780, Assembly Journal), and action had been deferred from time 
to time at Mr. Hall’s request, or through his skillful management, 
until the returns should come in from the election precincts. The 
final vote was taken on April 9 and resulted in 61 members favoring 
indefinite postponement and 18 opposing that action. Both bills 
suffered the same fate by the same vote (page 938, Assembly 
Journal), and Mr. Hall’s efforts along that line were suspended 
for four years, or until 1899. 

It is only fair to say that the proposed measures were not in 
any respect like the Potter law. Ho attempt was made to fix freight 
rates by statute, that business being left largely to the commission 
should one be appointed. There were some provisions in the bill 
that were unobjectionable and salutary and which were later in¬ 
corporated in substance, if not in form, into the law enacted in 
1905. The principal objection to the bills was that they were 
crudely drawn; that they would unnecessarily and unwisely have 
forced the abandonment of policies and practices that the business 
interests of the state required and upon which their continued pros¬ 
perity largely depended; and that they contained provisions that, 
were they to be put in force, would have hampered the corporations 
in the operation of their transportation lines without securing to 
the patrons of the roads any corresponding benefit. 

Justice to Mr. Hall’s memory, however, demands that the fact 


Railway Regulation. 


211 


be recorded that no suggestion ever came from him that the ad¬ 
ministration of the affairs of the railroads be taken entirely out of 
the hands of the corporation officers and placed in those of a po¬ 
litical‘commission. His railroad regulation bills were crude and 
impossible of successful operation, it is true, but they were far su¬ 
perior to—and would have been less harmful in operation than—the 
Potter law, the Texas law, the Iowa law, or the radical measure 
proposed for enactment in 1903 at the instance of Robert M. La 
Follette. 

The principal reason for the defeat of the Hall bills may be 
found in the fact that Wisconsin legislators and business men had 
not forgotten the Potter law and its disastrous consequences. Ob¬ 
jectionable practices had crept into the transportation business in 
some cases and there were many who realized that certain correc¬ 
tions should be made in the methods of doing business. But the 
one fact that stood out sun clear, about which there could be no 
mistake, was that the one attempt to regulate freight rates by law 
in Wisconsin had been a colossal blunder. It was a lively apprecia¬ 
tion of this fact more than any other thing that determined the 
fate of the Hall bills in 1895. 


V 




212 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER V. 

The Hall Bills in 1899 and 1901. 

Feb. 17, 1899, A. R. Hall, still in the assembly, introduced two 
bills, No. 388A and No. 389A, which were almost identical in form 
and substance with the two defeated in 1895. In the meantime a 
lively anti-railroad campaign had been carried on by the partisans 
of R. M. La Follette and under the leadership of that gentleman, 
who had been a candidate for the republican gubernatorial nomina- 
iton in 1896 and 1898 on an anti-corporation platform. It will be 
remembered that Mr. La Follette began his “anti” campaign shortly 
after his first defeat for the nomination. He took to the lecture 
platform and when the time came to hold county fairs he “followed 
the ponies” about the state preaching the doctrine of the total de¬ 
pravity of the corporations, great and small, who were supposed 
to be “grinding the faces of the poor.” 

During the year 1897 and well into the summer of 1898 the one 
text selected by Mr. La Follette upon which to base his numerous 
political sermons was this one of corporation depravity, and the 
railroads were held up as shining examples of the iniquity of 
corporate greed. It was not until fully eighteen months after 
the opening of this perpetual campaign that the primary election 
idea was injected into the proceedings, and even then the new issue 
was urged merely as a means to an end, a measure by which “the 
people” could secure control of the offices and enforce their will. 
That a campaigner of Mr. La Follette’s force, energy and care¬ 
fully prepared eloquence had some influence on popular sentiment 
goes without saying. There were more men in the assembly who 
were prepared to vote for almost any kind of a railroad regulation 
bill in 1899 than there had been in 1895, and there were still more 
who, out of respect for public opinion as they understood it, were 
not disposed to vote either way and dodged. 

An examination of the proposed laws showed that the same 
objections urged against them in 1895 still held good. There was 
the best of reasons for believing that were these bills to pass and 
become laws the splendid system of commodity and concentration 
rates, under which the industries of the state had been built up, 
would be abolished. While the rates were not specifically men¬ 
tioned, all discriminations of every character were forbidden and 
the concentration and commodity rates are, in fact, based upon 
discriminations. There were many wholesome provisions in the 
bills, but there were other objections besides the one mentioned that 
made it a dangerous experiment to place them upon the statute 
books and they were again defeated. 

On April 12 the railroad committee, to whom the two bills had 
been referred, returned them to the assembly without recommenda- 


Railway Regulation. 


213 , 

tion, and on April 25, after action had been postponed twice at 
Mr. HalFs request, the measures were refused engrossment and 
third reading. There was no roll call on bill No. 389, but on its 
companion measure, No. 388, the vote recorded was, for the bill, 
26; against it, 40; absent or not voting, 34. The question was on 
passing the bill to engrossment and third reading, and the record 
of the vote follows: 

Yeas—Messrs. Anderson, Baldock, Barber, Benson, Dahl, Dodge, 
Frost, Hall, Harvey, Holcomb, Holland, Humphrey, Kempley, McDonald, 
McGreer, Moore, Morgan, Morse, Mosher, Olson, Porter, Rasmussen, 
Ripley, Ryan J., Sneddon and Sturdevant—2G. 

Nays—Messrs. Barlow, Buttles, Cashin, Catlin, Daggett, Dengel, 
Dresser, Eline, Evans, Fogo, Galaway, Germer, Gilmore, Grube, Har- 
tung, Hurlbut, Jensen, Johnston, Keene, Killilea, Lange, Logan, Orton, 
Overbeck, Parker, Polley, Rechlicz, Roettinger, Rowell, Rusk, Ryan M. 
W., Schoenbaum, True, Wagner, Werheim, Williams, Willot, Willy, 
Wylie, and Mr. Speaker—40. 

Absent or not voting—Messrs. Adams, Becker, Bryant, Buffington, 
Clough, Elba, Farr, Feige, Flaherty, Gagnon, Gawin, Grootematt, Guth, 
Hoehle, Hunt, Ives, Johnson, Kessler, Loth, McGrath, McLeod, Middle- 
ton, Minch, Richardson, Sarau, Slade, Soltwedel, Steiger, Thiesenhusen. 
Thomas, Vandercook, Wills, Wheeler, and Zinn—34. 

Jan. 24, 1901, A. R. Hall for the third time introduced a bill 
to regulate the railroads. This time he consolidated his two meas¬ 
ures into one, but that was practically the only change made. The 
title of the measure ran as follows: 

“A bill to regulate railway corporations and other common carriers, 
in this state, to create a board of railway commissioners and define its 
powers and duties, to prevent and punish excessive rates and unjust 
discriminations in the rates charged for the transportation of passengers 
and freights, to prescribe the modes of procedure aud rules of evidence 
in relation thereto, and to repeal all laws in conflict with the provisions 
of this act.” 

The time that elapsed between the introduction of this bill by 
Mr. Hall on Jan. 24 and its defeat by indefinite postponement 
April 10 saw the end of the preliminary skirmish and the beginning 
of the pitched battle for railway rate regulation in Wisconsin. Not¬ 
withstanding his early antagonism to the railroad corporations at 
the time he was a defeated candidate for the republican guberna¬ 
torial nomination, Gov. La Follette had, from the time of the third 
announcement of his candidacy in the spring of 1900 down to the 
defeat of his primary election bill on April 11, 1901, maintained a 
not unfriendly attitude toward the railroads. During the early 
weeks of the session, in fact, he had appeared in a distinctly fiiendkv 
attitude toward those corporations and it is certain that Mr. Hall 
got little encouragement from the executive chamber while laboring 

to secure support for his bill. . . 

But, as the weeks passed and the certainty of securing the pas¬ 
sage of'the primary election measure began to fade, Gov. La Toi¬ 
lette’s friendship for the railroads cooled. The Hall railroad com- 


214 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


mission bill came up too late to get the benefit of this changed atti¬ 
tude—as did the railway taxation bills—and to this fact may be 
attributed the strength of the vote against it in the assembly when 
it came up for indefinite postponement on April 10, one day before 
the primary bill was killed in the senate. When the vote was 
taken there were 74 members of the assembly who were willing to 
go on record as being opposed to the bill and but 24 who favored 
it—2 less than the number who voted for its passage in 1899. And 
this, too, in a body that was acknowledged to be under the control 
of the governor. No one has ever disputed the truth of the state¬ 
ment that the assembly was organized to support the administration 
in 1901. No explanation can be offered for the overwhelming de¬ 
feat of the Hall railroad regulation bill in that body except that 
Gov. La Follette permitted, if he did not advise, his followers to 
vote against it until it was too late to change and pass. it. Among 
the names of members who voted for indefinite postponement will 
be found a fair proportion of men who supported administration 
measures in season and out of season, men who were open and ac¬ 
knowledged “Bobites,” as the partisans of the governor came to be. 
called later. 

The vote on the Hall bill, No. 78A, is recorded on page 833 of 
the Assembly Journal for 1901 as follows, the question being on 
the indefinite postponement of the measure: 

Yeas—Ainsworth, Andrew, Barker, Barlow, Benson, Burdeau, Cady, 
Clark, Cleopas, Coapman, Collins, Duerrwaeckter, Eager, Ela, Eline, 
Erickson, Esau, Evans David J., Evans Evan W., Fesenfeld, Flaherty, 
Gagnon, Galaway, Gawin, Hanson, Hartung, Hodgins, Holland, Jensen, 
Johnston, Jones, Karel, Katz, Keene, Kern, Krumrey, Lane, McCabe, 
McComb, McCormick, McGill, McMillan, Manuel, Maloney, Miller E. A., 
Miller Herman, Moldenhauer, Norton, Orton, Overbeck, Park, Pomrening, 
Price, Rasmussen, Rogers, Root, Rossman, Sarau, Schellenberg, Silk- 
worth, Slade, Smalley, Smith, Soltwedel, Steiger, Thiessenhusen, 
Thomas, Valentine, Whitson, Williams E. A., Willott, Young, Zinn, and 
Mr. Speaker—74. 

Nays—Anderson, Babb, Brunson, Cook, Dahl, Dodge, Fenelon, Frost, 
Gilman, Hagerty, Hall, Henry, Johnson F., Johnson H., Lenroot, Middle- 
ton, Owen. Rankl, Roe, Spratt, Stevens, Sturdevant, Swenholt, and 
Williams J. C.—24. 

Absent or not voting—Messrs. Dow and Minor—2. 

This ended Mr. Hall’s connection with railroad legislation in 
Wisconsin, as his last term of service in the Wisconsin assembly 
closed with that biennial period. On the whole his record was a 
creditable one, notwithstanding the fact that he earned the repu¬ 
tation of being an enemy of the railroads. He was a “progressive” 
in fact as well as in name and he consistently supported all reform 
legislation from whatever source it emanated. He aided in the 
passage in the bills by which the temporary and permanent tax 
commissions were organized; he was a friend of the Whitehead bills 
by which a new system of taxation was prescribed for the tele- 


Railway Regulation. 


215 


graph, express, and sleeping car companies; his support was given 
to the corrupt practices act in 1897, to the insurance taxation 
measure introduced by Judge Orton in 1899, and to many other 
wholesome and salutary laws. And he has been given full credit for 
his labors by the people of Wisconsin whom he served. 

This ended also the preliminary skirmish for railroad legis¬ 
lation designed to improve and modernize the Wisconsin statutes 
relating to that subject. From this time until the present law was 
enacted in 1905, the fight of the administration forces, led by Gov¬ 
ernor La Follette, was of a different character. 


216 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER VI. 

La Follette Takes Up the Fight. 

In the section of this review devoted to the history of the pri¬ 
mary election movement the political developments at Madison 
during the legislative session of 1901 are explained at considerable 
length. It is unnecessary here to repeat the details of the factional 
dispute which made that period memorable, but it is important that 
no opening be left for misunderstanding with respect to certain 
facts relating to the declaration of war on the railroad corporations 
that accompanied, although it did not cause, the disruption of the 
republican party in Wisconsin. 

In his first biennial message to the legislature in January, 1901, 
Gov. La Follette had nothing to say on the subject of railroad rate 
regulation. As has been shown, Mr. Hall had, in 1895 and 1899, 
introduced bills designed, in a measure, to control freight rates, 
and the governor had himself conducted a frantic anti-corporation 
campaign from the time he was defeated for the gubernatorial nom¬ 
ination in 1896 up to a period shortly antedating his third an¬ 
nouncement as a candidate for that office. Following his message 
and during the entire time the Hall railroad regulation bill was 
before the assembly in 1901 there is not one line in the records 
to indicate that the governor raised a finger to aid Mr. Hall. On 
the contrary, his silence and the known antagonism to the measure 
of many of his most subservient followers all indicated that he was 
opposed to the bill. 

But the failure of his attempt to dictate to the legislature in 
other matters, mainly the primary election bill, angered Gov. La 
Follette beyond all reason, and, to use a homely metaphor, “he 
began to rock the boat.” He sent in his veto of the Hagemeister 
primary bill and his celebrated “dog tax veto.” He tongue lashed 
the members of the legislature who had refused to do his bidding 
and started in to make good his threat to “drive from public life 
in this state every man who opposed him.” Naturally the railroads, 
conservative by force of circumstances and the nature of their busi¬ 
ness, were placed under the ban and marked for punishment of an 
exemplary character. 

Shortly after the adjournment of the legislature in the spring 
of 1901 Gov. La Follette’s health became impaired and in the late 
summer he was forced to abandon his official duties entirely. For 
weeks and months he was invisible, his physician prescribing abso¬ 
lute rest and a strict diet. There was nothing doing at the ex¬ 
ecutive chamber during the summer and early autumn months. 
Lieut. Gov. Jesse Stone was not called in to perform the duties 
that, under the constitution, devolved upon him in the event of the 
total disability of the executive, but the governor was invisible to 


Railway Regulation. 


217 


all but his physician and family just the same. The private secre¬ 
tary kept the executive office open during the interim and met all 
inquiries with evasive replies. 

Meanwhile there was a cessation of hostilities. The leading news¬ 
papers opposed to Gov. La Follette’s policies and methods studi¬ 
ously avoided criticising him out of fear that they would be ac¬ 
cused of attacking a sick man, and little was done in either camp 
except to prepare for the battle promised for the following year. 
The Wisconsin Republican league organized and began collecting 
names for a partial poll list of voters, but this work was all of a 
preliminary character. 

The campaign of 1902 was an anti-corporation campaign, with 
all the term implies, on the part of the state administration faction. 
The main issue, it is true, was the governor’s primary election prop¬ 
osition, but, having failed to secure the passage of that measure at 
the last session of the legislature, the “anti” campaign was organ¬ 
ized and conducted with all the energy that characterized the 
earlier La Follette crusades against the railroads and other alleged 
oppressors of the people. But even in those circumstances there was 
less said about rate regulation than there was about the taxation 
of corporations. The governor, who led the forces in person, de¬ 
voted a greater part of his time and talents to the discussion of 
what he considered the most popular issues. It has been his custom 
always to center his attention upon one or two propositions which 
he can present in the most effective manner, leaving other matters, 
that may be of equal importance, for use in subsequent campaigns. 

And this is what he did in 1902. He wisely refused to “scatter” 
and worked away manfully at the primary and taxation issues, as 
he saw them, leaving the subject of rate regulation to be used in 
the next campaign. But he did not neglect it entirely. There 
was enough about the right of the state to control corporations in 
his speeches and literature to indicate to the man who was ac¬ 
quainted with his political methods that the railroad rate question 
was in the incubator. 

Gov. La Follette was renominated and re-elected, and his rail¬ 
road regulation scheme came out of its shell. It was not a new 
idea, being copied mainly from the Iowa law, but there were some 
features of the bill he subsequently advocated that were peculiarly 
offensive to Wisconsin business men and manufacturers. 

The governor opened the pitched battle for railroad regulation 
in his message read in person to the legislature on Jan. 15, 1903. 
In that message he took the ground that it was not only the right 
but the duty of the legislature to provide for the creation of a 
commission armed with authority to fix freight and passenger rates^ 
“in advance.” He would not be satisfied with a board that could 
only review rates and pass upon their reasonableness. He wanted 
a body that could sit down in the capitol building and draw up a 


218 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


schedule of freight tariffs for every road doing business in Wisconsin 
and force the adoption of that schedule. The message is a long 
one, covering, with its statistical supplement, 120 pages of the 
assembly journal, and it was looked upon as a distinct declaration 
of war against the common carriers. 

The next move in the war game was the introduction by the 
assembly committee on railroads of bill No. 623A on March 6, 1903 
(page 473, Assembly Journal). This committee was appointed 
by Irvine L. Lenroot, the speaker, and no one doubted that they 
would report just such a bill as the governor wanted. No one ever 
accused Gov. La Follette of drafting the measure. It was an open 
secret at Madison at that time that, however able he might be 
as a propagandist, however eloquently he might express his 
opinions about measures and men, however extensive might be 
his references to statistics in support of his propositions, he lacked 
the ability to frame legislative measures that would be satisfac¬ 
tory even to himself. But he had in his councils men who were 
expert in the business of drawing bills, and they put his ideas into 
form. The committee that reported the rate regulation bill was 
made up as follows: C. W. Gilman, chairman; J. A. Frear, W. S. 
Braddock, R. Ainsworth, R. E. Tarrell, George P. Stevens, George 
E. Beedle, 0. G. Kinney, W. S. Irvine, F. M. Reed, and Lewis 
Benson, the latter being a democrat. 

While this bill did not provide, as did the Potter law in 1874, 
for a statutory schedule of freight rates, it went even farther than 
the early law in the matter of interference with railroad companies 
in the transaction of their business and it provided for a distance 
tariff as illogical and destructive in its tendencies as that of the 
Potter law. There are thousands of people in this state who never 
knew to what extent this revolutionary measure of Gov. La Fol- 
lette’s presumed to go. They read the accounts of the controversy 
in the newspapers and they took sides for or against the governor’s 
proposition-on the strength of the presentation of arguments, but 
the bald, naked proposition to take the management of the railroads 
entirely out of the hands of the officers elected by the stockholders 
and entrust it to a board of commissioners appointed by the gov¬ 
ernor of the state was a point that did not find lodgment in the 
public mind as clearly as it should have done. That this is not an 
overstatement of the purposes of the measure is shown by the fol¬ 
lowing quotations from the bill itself: 

“Powers and duties. Section 8. The board may, from time to time, 
carefully examine into and inspect the condition of each railroad, its 
equipment and the manner of its conduct and management with regard 
to the public safety and convenience; make annual examination of its 
bridges, and, if found by it to be unsafe, it shall immediately notify the 
railroad company whose duty it is to put the same in repair; such re¬ 
pairs shall be made by said company iwithin ten days after receiving 
such notice. If any railroad fails to perform this duty, the board shall 
forbid and prevent it from running trains over such bridges while 


Railway Regulation. 


219 


unsafe. It shall inspect all railroad time tables and see that as close 
connections as practicable are made at the several junction points within 
the state, between trains of connecting lines or branches. When, in the 
judgment of the board, any railroad fails in any respect to comply with 
the terms of its charter, articles of incorporation, or the laws of the state, 
or when, in its judgment, any repairs are necessary upon its road, or 
any additions to its rolling stock or additions to or change in its stations 
or station houses, or change in its rate of fare for transportation of 
freight or passengers, OR CHANGE IN THE MODE OF OPERATING 
ITS ROAD OR CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS is reasonable or EX¬ 
PEDIENT, in order to promote the security, convenience or accommoda¬ 
tion of the public, tjie board shall make such order, as the facts found 
by it may warrant, and serve a copy on such railroad, in the manner 
provided for the service of summons in a civil action in courts of record, 
which order shall be signed by the secretary or any member of said 
board. Such order shall specify what shall be done by said railroad, 
and if there shall be a neglect or refusal to comply with such order, 
the board may, in its discretion, cause suit or proceedings to be insti¬ 
tuted to enforce its orders as provided in this act.” 

One more quotation from the bill is necessary in order that a 
thorough understanding may be had of its revolutionary character. 
Under the rate making system then in force, and which has not 
since been changed, the railroads had promulgated schedules de¬ 
signed to foster and build up the manufacturing and agricultural 
industries of the state. They had adopted what was known as the 
“zone system,” by which a number of cities and manufacturing 
points were grouped together and all given the same rate to the 
markets or distributing points, regardless of distance. This was 
done in order that industries might be distributed along the lines 
of the several railroads wherever they could manufacture to ad¬ 
vantage. Also, there had been established the splendid system of 
concentration and commodity rates described in a previous chapter 
under which the agricultural interests of the state had been rescued 
from threatening bankruptcy in 1875 and raised to unexampled 
prosperity- in 1903. All this Gov. La Follette proposed to change, 
for another section of his proposed law read as follows: 

“Commissioners’ Schedules of Rates—Effects. Section 24. The 
schedules of maximum rates of charges for the transportation of freight 
and cars, together with the classification of freights now in effect, shall 
remain in force until changed by the board according to law, and, in all 
actions brought against railroads, wherein there are involved charges for 
the transportation of any freight or cars, or any unjust discrimination in 
relation thereto, shall be taken as prima facie evidence in all courts that 
the rates fixed therein are reasonable and just maximum rates of 
charges. The board shall from time to time, and as often as circum¬ 
stances may require, change and revise such schedules, but the rates 
fixed shall not be higher than established by law. The board shall 
give notice of its intention to revise or change such schedules by mailing 
a copy thereof to the railroad to be affected thereby and by publishing 
a notice thereof in such newspaper as the board may direct for two suc¬ 
cessive weeks, the last publication of such notice to be at least ten days 
before the time fixed for considering the matter, and such notice shall 
contain, in general terms, a statement of the matters which the board 


220 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


proposes to consider, and the date when and the place where the matter 
will be taken up. * * *” 

The remainder of the section provides for publishing and serv¬ 
ing copies of decisions of the board establishing new schedules of 
rates. 

But this was not all. In the substitute bill introduced by the 
same committee April 24 (Page 900, Assembly Journal), the sec¬ 
tion here quoted was changed by requiring the board to make an 
entirely new schedule of rates at the start, or “as soon as practi¬ 
cable,” the purpose being to abolish at the earliest possible moment 
the schedules of rates made by the railroad traffic men and substi¬ 
tute in their places other schedules of distance tariff rates made by 
the members of the board. The language of the substitute bill is 
unequivocal and definite on this point, for it says: 

“Section 24. The board shall prepare, as soon as practicable, sched¬ 
ules of reasonable maximum rates for the transportation of passengers 
and property between the various stations on the lines of the several 
railroads within the state and the several terminal and junction stations 
situated therein; a separate schedule to be prepared for the line or lines 
of railroad within the state operated by each individual railroad, and 
also similar schedules of MILEAGE RATES for application to traffic 
between all other stations on the several lines within the state; and 
shall also prepare a uniform classification of articles of freight for use 
in connection with said schedules.” 

This provision takes the place of the one in the section pre¬ 
viously quoted from the original bill establishing the existing sched¬ 
ules as maximum rates until changed by the board, the remainder 
of the section being unchanged in the substitute. 

After providing for the establishment of a distance tariff^ or 
“schedules of mileage rates,” which is the same thing, the substitute 
bill provided in Section 31 that commodity rates might be per¬ 
mitted, but no provision was made for zone rates, or concentration 
rates, without which the commodity rate would be of little value to 
the shippers. A commodity distance tariff is a distance tariff, 
and geographical location would be a more important item under 
such a system than it is now. 


Railway' Regulation. 


221 


CHAPTER VII. 

Governor vs. Manufacturers and Shippers. 

The substitute for assembly bill ISTo. 623 was reported by the 
committee on railroads April 24, 1903. Four days later Gov. La 
Follette transmitted to the legislature a special message of 108 
pages, with a statistical supplement of seventy-five pages giving 
comparisons of rates in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois prepared by 
the commissioner of labor and industrial statistics. It was the 
governor’s purpose to show that, under the distance tariff of Iowa 
and the maximum rates established by the Illinois railroad com¬ 
mission, conditions were much more favorable to shippers than 
they were in Wisconsin. 

April 29, the day following the receipt of the governor’s mes¬ 
sage by the legislature, the largest gathering of business men ever 
held in Madison for consultation on a subject of legislation pend¬ 
ing at the time was convened in that city for the purpose of pro¬ 
testing against the passage of the measure. The written protest 
was signed by 164 firms, manufacturing corporations, and indi¬ 
viduals, one of whom represented an association numbering 165 
manufacturers, merchants, and shippers doing business at Sheboy¬ 
gan. 

The governor’s message was an attempted justification of the 
distance tariff system of railroad rates. The word “attempted” is 
used because no" such justification is possible in sound reason and 
logic. The business of a country can not be transacted solely by 
mathematical rules. Industrial science is not merely an appeal to 
mathematical formulas as a method of disposing of all probelms 
as they ari§e. If that were the case, any graduate of a ward school 
would be as competent to make freight rates as the most experienc¬ 
ed traffic man, for all he would need to do would be to apply the 
rules of addition, substraction, and multiplication and the most 
complicated rate question would be answered. 

Furthermore, it was shown to the satisfaction of a majority of 
the members of the legislature that the figures contained in the 
tables accompanying both the biennial and special message were un¬ 
reliable and misleading. The statistician had taken the published 
distance tariffs of the" railroads of Wisconsin, under which traffic 
was seldom moved, and compared them with the regular working 
tariffs of other states which controlled all the business transacted 
by the common carriers in those states. In other words, he had se¬ 
lected the highest rates he could find in Wisconsin and compared 
them with the lowest rates in other states. The W isconsin distance 
tariffs governed but a small per cent of traffic about 2 per cent, 

in fact_while the Iowa rates given were the regular tariffs under 

which practically all of the tonnage in the state was canied. 


222 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


Another important feature of the governor’s tables was that 
they were full of errors, whether made by the man who prepared 
the tables or by the printer does not appear. Burton Hanson, 
general solicitor for the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul road, 
made the assertion before the railroad committee that one table 
accompanying Gov. La Follette’s biennial message contained “637 
distinct errors, nearly all of which are against the railroad com¬ 
panies.” 

But the important point about all of the governor’s arguments 
and comparative statistics was that he had used the distance tariffs 
in Wisconsin, when he should have taken the commodity and mer¬ 
chandise tariffs under which the freight business of the state was 
transacted. As the Iowa rates used in the tables in making com¬ 
parisons were the regular rates controlling traffic in that state, the 
lowest rates in all cases, the comparisons were clearly and demon¬ 
strably unfair, and the demonstration was made to the satisfaction 
of the members of the legislature. This fact should be kept in 
mind, for it explains why Gov. La Follette failed to secure the 
adoption of the Iowa system of railroad rate regulation in Wiscon¬ 
sin in 1903, and it explains also why he failed again in 1905, al¬ 
though he used the same figures and the same methods in his sec¬ 
ond attempt. 

April 29, the day following the delivery of the special message 
to the legislature and one day prior to the date set for final action 
on the bill, the meeting of business men and shippers already men¬ 
tioned was held at Madison. This meeting was called for consul¬ 
tation and to formulate a protest against the passage of the pend¬ 
ing measure. The call for co-operation in resisting the threatened 
change was signed by sixty-five manufacturing firms and corpora¬ 
tions doing business at Madison, Wausau, Bacine, Kenosha, 
Menasha, Green Bay, and other places. After talking the matter 
over the meeting determined to draw up a formal protest against 
the passage of the bill and lay their views before the members of 
the legislature. The protest was drawn and printed, and a copy 
furnished to each member by placing it upon his desk. 

In their protest the shippers gave the reasons why they were 
opposed to the enactment of a law like the one proposed. They 
explained that, after many years of labor and concerted effort, the 
producers of Wisconsin had succeeded in bringing about the adop¬ 
tion by the railroads of “such commodity, group, and concentra¬ 
tion rates as are best fitted to develop their business interests and 
promote the growth of the state.” They took upon themselves the re¬ 
sponsibility for the establishment of the system of rates then in 
force, which were the result of years of conference, experiment, 
and adjustment, in which the shippers had taken the initiative— 
not the railroads. The system was, therefor, a logical growth de¬ 
signed to meet the demands of the commerce of the state, and it 


Railway Regulation. 


223 


conformed closely to the interstate system of rates. This had been 
accomplished, they said, “with the least injury to any of the inter¬ 
ests of the state; indeed, it has resulted to the general benefit of all. 
In dependence upon these rates large investments have been made, 
great manufacturing and shipping industries have been built up, 
and plans perfected which will materially aid in the future growth 
of the state/’ They continued: 

We believe that any attempt to disturb this system of transporta¬ 
tion rates /will unsettle the business affairs of the state, endanger invest¬ 
ments, and interfere with the development of our industries.” 

The protest which was of considerable length, also explained 
the probable effect of such a law, upon the commodity rates, 
notwithstanding the section that was supposed to permit of 
such rates. To the legislators they said that the section that 
professed to grant this privilege expressly forbade it, as it abso¬ 
lutely prohibited the granting of zone, x or group, rates, and 
established a distance tariff system. A distance tariff is a distance 
tariff for commodities as well as for other classifications, and it 
was a distance tariff they were protesting against. 

This issue was met by Gov. La Follette and his followers in the 
legislature with the statement that these men were in Madison at 
the mandate of the railroad officials. They were either receiving 
unjust discriminations, it was argued, or were afraid they would 
be subjected to adverse discriminations if they did not come to the 
aid of the transportation corporations in their hour of need. Spe¬ 
cific cases were even cited—the names of the persons or firms in¬ 
terested being concealed, it was explained, because of the injury 
such a disclosure would work to them—where threats had been 
made, it was alleged, of unjust discriminations should the suppos¬ 
ed victim presume to act contrary to the wishes of the railroad of¬ 
ficers. 

But this argument would not stand alone while it was being 
answered. Had the manufacturers and shippers of the state been 
so entirely at the mercy of the railroad companies that they feared 
ruin at their hands, they would willingly have permitted a law to 
be enacted placing it beyond the power of those corporations to 
injure them. In that case they would gladly have flocked to 
Madison in support of the bill in as great, if not greater, numbers 
than they did to protest against the enactment of such a law. 

The plain fact is that the business industries of the state had 
been built up under the system of freight rates then in force. 
They depended for their very existence on the zone, commodity 
and concentration rates. Millions of dollars had been invested in 
manufacturing enterprises under conditions that were now threat¬ 
ened with a revolutionary change and the certainty of loss was un¬ 
questionable should the proposed changes be made. Manufactur¬ 
ers who had established themselves at favorable points near mar- 


224 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


kets and who shipped their raw materials long distances had no 
way of knowing what the proposed distance tariff system would do 
to their business except that it would necessarily increase the cost 
of their product by increasing the cost of their raw materials. 
Other producers, who were long distances from markets, were in a 
quandary as to how they would be able to deliver their products 
under a distance tariff in competition with rivals who were more 
favorably situated with respect to geographical location. It was 
a veritable industrial revolution that was impending, and an in¬ 
dustrial revolution, also, that spelled removal or ruin to some of 
the most important manufacturing establishments in the state. 


Railway Regulation. 


225 


CHAPTER VIII. 

The Bill Defeated. 


But the danger was averted by the defeat of the bill. The pro¬ 
test of the merchants and manufacturers was signed and issued 
April 29. Bill No. 623A came up as the special order at 10 o’clock 
a. m., April 30 (page 1002, Assembly Journal). A motion was 
made by Chairman Gilman of the railroad committee that the as¬ 
sembly go into committee of the whole to consider the bill and 
substitute, the intention being to give an opportunity for oratory, 
but the motion was defeated by a vote of yeas 43, nays 50, absent 
or not voting 7. 

Torger G. Thompson, member from Dane county, then moved 
an amendment in the form of a substitute for section 1 of the bill, 
in which amendment an elective commission was provided for in 
place of the one to be appointed by the governor. This motion 
was defeated (page 1004, A. J.) by a vote of yeas 10, nays 84 ab¬ 
sent or not voting 6. The assembly then adjourned until 2 o’clock 
p. m. 

The entire afternoon session was taken up with the considera¬ 
tion of this measure (page 1005 A. J.), Speaker Lenroot having 
called Assemblyman Smalley to the chair, as he desired to take 
an active part in the debate. It is a significant fact that, although 
there was no question about the position Gov. La Follette had sus¬ 
tained from the first to this measure, and notwithstanding his two 
messages on the subject, when it came up for final action only the 
members who followed the governor without question, as the light 
brigade charged at Balaklava, favored its enactment into law. 
There were many administration followers in the assembly who 
were willing to go almost any length to carry out his general polit¬ 
ical program. They believed that “nothing succeeds like success.” 
They looked upon Gov. La Follette as a star to which they had 
hitched their wagons. But there is a limit beyond which even an 
aspiring politician can not go at times and that limit was reached 
when practically the entire business element of the state entered 
into a protest against the bill urged by Gov. La Follette for pass- 
age. 

A vote was not taken at the afternoon session as the adminis¬ 
tration forces, led by Speaker Lenroot, were determined to leave 
no stone unturned to put the measure through, or at least to make 
a good showing. They were playing for a record. They knew, 
or had reason to believe, their bill was doomed, but it was the pol¬ 
icy of Gov. La Follette always to have an issue in reserve, and this 
railway regulation issue would serve his purpose if it were defeated, 
as it was in the end. The burden of the argument in the speeches 
for the administration side of the debate »vas the same as that of 


226 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


the governor’s message—unjust discrimination which was alleged 
to operate to prevent the producers of Wisconsin from reaping as 
much profit from their business as did their competitors in other 
states, particularly in Iowa. The opposition took their stand upon 
the protest issued by the manufacturers and merchants, and main¬ 
tained that the bill, should it become a law, would prove to be des¬ 
tructive, and not constructive, in its character. 

A vote on the measure was reached at the evening session of 
the same day, it having occupied the attention of the assembly 
since 10 o’clock in the forenoon. The first vote was on a referen¬ 
dum amendment offered by Assemblyman Le Roy of Marinette, 
which was defeated by an affirmative vote of 37 to 56 negatives. 
The next question was on the adoption of the assembly railroad 
committee’s amendment as a substitute for the original bill. This 
motion also was defeated by an afhmative vote of 34, against a 
negative vote of 59 (page 1007, A. J.). Then came the vote on 
the original bill and assemblyman Ray of La Crosse moved that it 
be indefinitely postponed, which motion was carried, yeas 67, 
nays 25, paired 4, absent or not voting 4, Following is the report 
of the roll call (page 1008, A. J.) : 

Yeas—Messrs. Arneman, Barker, Bartzen, Becker, Benson (the demo¬ 
cratic member of the committee on railroads), Bradford, Breitwisch, 
Cady, Carpenter, Coffland, Cosgrove, Cowling, Crowley, Dinsdale, Dixon, 
Donald. Dudgeon, E. W. Evans, Finnegan, Fridd, Fritzke, Iladerer, 
Hamm, Hannifin, Hartung, Hassa, Hodgins, F. Johnson, Thomas John¬ 
son, Johnston, Karel, Ivehrein, Kern, La Due, Lang, Lane, Le Roy, 
Loebs, Lord, Martin, Miller, Moldenhauer, Morgan, Morris, Osborn, Peter¬ 
son, Rakow, Ray, Reed, Reynolds, Rupp, Sidler, Slade, A. E. Smith. O 
H. Smith, Terens, Thiessenhusen, Thoreson, Thompson, Timlin, Valen¬ 
tine, Waterman, Westfahl, White, Whitson, Williams and Wiliott—67. 

Nays—Messrs. Ainsworth, Andrew, Bartlett, Braddock, Chandler, 
Dahl, Doolittle, Douglas, Ekern, Evans D. Jr., Frear, Gilman, Irvine, 
Johnson (Henry), Kimball, Koch, Potter, Rankl, Root, Smalley, Smelker, 
Stevens, Tarrell, Verbeck and Mr. Speaker—25. 

Paired—Mr. Carberry for indefinite postponement, Mr. Strong 
against; Mr. Walrich for; Mr. Beedle against—4. 

Absent or not voting—Messrs. Brittan, Kinney, Price, and Szy- 
marek—4. 

This closed the first battle and left an issue with which Gov. 
La Follette could go into the next campaign, of which he availed 
himself. It will be noticed that of the eleven committeemen who 
reported the bill, eight favored it when it came up for final dis¬ 
posal, two voted against it, and one Assemblyman Kinney, did not 
vote. The two who opposed it were Messrs. Benson and Reed; 
those who favored it were Messrs. Ainsworth, Braddock, Beedle, 
Frear, Gilman, Irvine, Stevens, and Tarrell. 


Railway Regulation. 


227 


CHAPTER IX. 

The Beginning of the End. 

Following the adjournment of the legislature on May 23, Gov. 
La Follette made preparation for beginning the next campaign 
immediately. Since the first election of Gov. La Follette Wiscon¬ 
sin citizens have had no occasion to complain of apathy on the part 
of politicians. There have been no “off years” in this state polit¬ 
ically, for a perpetual campaign has been in progress except dur¬ 
ing the summer and autumn of 1901 when the governor was too 
ill to engage in work of that kind. While he remained in the state 
he kept the pot boiling. Before he transferred his person and ac¬ 
tivities to Washington and gave his summers to the lecture plat¬ 
form he succeeded in securing the enactment of the primary elec¬ 
tion law. As a result of that law the office seeker is always busy. 

As has been said, the governor prepared to begin his next cam¬ 
paign immediately after the adjournment of the legislature in 
May, 1903. He rearranged the figures he had used in his two mes¬ 
sages in order to give them local application and took the stump 
in the fall. He went from town to town, from county fair to 
county fair, and on each occasion he demonstrated mathematically 
that the people of the particular city or county in which he was 
speaking were being robbed by the railroads. He showed how the 
state was paying millions of tribute to the greedy corporations 
and explained that the only way of abolishing the alleged evil of 
which he complained was to adopt the Iowa distance tariff system. 

All the figures he had used in his argument had been refuted. 
The figures he quoted, prepared by his official statistician for the 
purposes and uses to which he was putting them, had been shown 
to be inaccurate and misleading—that they were, in fact, of no 
value; that the comparison he was drawing between the state that 
had honored him by elevating him to the highest position in the 
gift of the people and other states were false and calculated to work 
injury to his own state. He ignored all the proofs that had been 
presented showing his figures unreliable. 

As a counter movement the conservatives undertook to secure 
the publication, in the state press, of facts and figures that would 
refute the arguments of the governor, and prove that his rate quo¬ 
tations were misleading. In all sections of the state the newspa¬ 
pers printed the published rates actually charged for carrying 
freight from the local points to market, or to distributing centers, 
and compared them with the distance tariffs of Iowa for like dis¬ 
tances. It was shown that in almost every instance the Wisconsin 
rates were lower than those of Iowa and Illinois. 

But he was renominated at the gymnasium convention at Madi¬ 
son and re-elected in November, 1904. In order to secure his elec- 


228 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


tion lie promised the farmers of the state that he would reduce 
their living expenses by reducing the freight charges they were 
forced to pay on everything they consumed and on everything they 
produced if they would give him another term in the office of 
governor. He even figured how much he would save per capita to 
the people of the state by his distance tariff system of rates. Each 
head of a family was to be benefited to the extent of about $39 an¬ 
nually by the proposed change. And there were many who believed 
him competent to work the miracle promised. 

When the legislature met in the winter of 1905 Gov. La Fol- 
lette renewed his fight for the adoption of the Iowa distance tariff, 
but he was not in as favorable a position to carry his point as he 
had been two years before. In 1903 he had a legislative committee 
on railroads that would carry out his program to the letter. In 
1905 the matter was taken up by the senate committee, a body 
that was disposed to do some investigating and thinking on its 
own account. Senator W. H. Hatton, an administration man, 
was chairman of the committee and he had as associates Senators 
Frear, Munson, Hudnall, Beach, Wipperman, Johnson, Morris, and 
Merton. 

The assembly committee on railroads was made up, as its pre¬ 
decessor had been, of men who would do as the governor ordered. 
They were Messrs. Braddock, chairman; Stevens, Irvine, Thayer, 
Winch, Powell, Oltman, McKenzie, Metzler, and Fred Peterson. 

As a starting point, “something to chew on/ 7 a bill was intro¬ 
duced in both houses early in the session, on Feb. 10, No. 268S, 
and No. 444A. These bills met the governor’s approval as they 
were merely copies of the Texas law. Gov. La Follette already had 
announced that something of the kind must be enacted into law. 
In his usual dogmatic way he said that the whole controversy had 
been settled at the polls. To quote from his message: 

“If any question can be definitely settled by the people of a state, 
the people of Wisconsin have settled the question that railway service 
and railway rates shall be controlled by a railway commission, in so far 
as the same are subject to state control under the constitution. The 
issue was presented for their consideration in terms that could not be 
misunderstood or misrepresented. Throughout a protracted campaign it 
claimed paramount attention. Its discussion was strongly demanded 
by the voters of every section of the state, to the subordination of all 
other questions, even those pertaining to national government. In so 
far, then, as it is possible in a democracy, we assemble this time, under 
instructions of those who sent us here to execute their commands.” 

The only limit he set on the discretion of the legislature in fram¬ 
ing the proposed law was the one laid down by the constitution. 
He even spoke regretfully of the repeal of the historic Potter law 
in 1876, for he refered to that law as a “breaking away of Wiscon¬ 
sin from railroad control.” 

The assembly appeared to take the tentative bills introduced 


Railway Regulation. 


229 


on Feb. 10 seriously, as it made a few amendments, suggested by 
the committee that originally introduced it, and passed it on April 
18 by a vote of 75 to 12, there being thirteen absentees. The mem¬ 
bers who voted against the measure were Assemblymen Barker, 
Brooks, Everett, Hansen, Frank Johnson, Miller, Norcross, Page, 
Racek, Ramsey, Reynolds, and Szymarek. The seventy-five 
“Bobites” thought they were doing right, probably, but they were 
counting on men in the senate who were too wise to follow their 
lead. The senate nonconcurred in the action of the assembly on 
bill No. 444A on May 25, Senator Hatton making the motion. 


230 


Political. Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER X. 

The Railway Commission Law Enacted. 

The real work of perfecting the Wisconsin railway commission 
law was performed by the senate committee on railroads with what 
outside assistance they could call to their aid. Senator Hatton, 
chairman of the committee took the lead in the work, and the law 
was given his name, but he was merely the leader, not the author 
of the measure, which was the result of the labors of many men. 

Of the members of the committee Senators Otis Johnson and 
Z. P. Beach were conservatives. Senators Herman Wipperman and 
George B. Hudnall were at the time “near half breeds/ 5 but the for¬ 
mer had been disciplined in 1903 for alleged gross and unbecom¬ 
ing independence of opinion, and the latter was already drifting 
away from the straight and narrow path of implicit faith in and 
absolute obedience to the governor. They were therefore, no long¬ 
er to be relied upon to follow out the personal La Follette program. 
Senators Frear, Munson, and Morris were administration men, 
and Senator Merton was a democrat who was something of a re¬ 
former on his own account. It must be said, however, that Senator 
Merton acted with a majority of the committee in their efforts to 
frame a workable statute, and that he supported the measure final¬ 
ly drawn, although ill health made it impossible for him to be pre¬ 
sent when the final vote was taken. 

Of Senator Hatton’s position there can be no reasonable doubt. 
Although he always had been and still was an administration sup¬ 
porter, the chairman of the committee did not at any time believe 
in the doctrine preached by Gov. La Follette on the railway rate 
question. How he managed to avoid being drummed out of the 
camp is a mystery, but that he did succeed in retaining his place 
in the councils of the governor while pursuing a course that was, 
in fact, if not openly and contumaciously, in antagonism to La 
Follette’s wishes and purposes is a fact of history that can not 
successfully be disputed. The governor considered the question 
settled. He made that announcement in his biennial message. 
His understanding of the situation was that the people of Wis¬ 
consin wanted something like the Iowa and Texas laws—a com¬ 
posite of the two would satisfy him. 

But Senator Hatton was of a different opinion. In a subsequent 
interview he explained that when he first took up the consideration 
of the question of railroad regulation he made it a point to talk 
to every man from whom he believed he could gather information 
of value, and he also consulted published works on both sides of 
the subjects. He read the laws of other states, digested them, and 
finally came to the conclusion that none of them were entirely satis¬ 
factory to him as they were not based on correct principles. His 


Railway Regulation. 


231 


main objection to the laws then in force was that they all gave to 
the commissions the power to make and promulgate rates. He 
believed, he said, that the three things that should be sought in 
framing a measure of the kind under consideration were “ade¬ 
quate service, reasonable rates, and no unjust discrimination.” It 
will be noticed that these were the principles for which the con¬ 
servatives were contending. 

In arriving at this conclusion Senator Hatton stated that he 
was aided by professors of the state university, by large shippers, 
and by other members of the legislature who had given the subject 
intelligent study. Members of the committee with whom he con¬ 
sulted daily also contributed valuable ideas on the subject. 

The first bill introduced, he explained in the interview, was 
merely a “dummy,” designed to occupy the attention of the rank 
and file of the legislators while the committee was working out the 
problem. The first committee substitute was little better than the 
original “dummy,” as it was merely a modification of the Texas 
law which had first been introduced. All the time the committee 
had in its possession the bill that finally appeared on the calendar 
as committee substitute No. 2 . 

Meanwhile, Senator L. Kreutzer and Senator W. C. North 
had introduced substitute bills which were decided improvements 
on the committee bill. Senator Kreutzer’s measure was the result 
of exhaustive investigations, in which he was aided by the best le¬ 
gal talent at his home city, Wausau, as well as large shippers who, 
by years of experience in dealing with the transportation compan¬ 
ies, had formed opinions concerning the existing laws and believed 
they knew where they should be strengthened. Senator North’s 
bill was what had come to be known as “the stalwart bill.” In its 
construction had been put the best thought and work of lawyers, 
shippers, and railroad traffic men, all of whom had technical 
knowledge of the business to be regulated and were in a position 
to speak with authority on the subject. 

All of these measures were referred to the committee, and, with 
the several bills before them, the members of that body were in a 
position to take the best features from each and construct a good 
measure. And this is precisely what they did. One of the hard¬ 
est workers on the committee was Senator Otis Johnson, the un¬ 
wavering “stalw r art,” and Senator Beach w r as equally determined 
to arrive at a sound conclusion. Either would have preferred the 
regular stalwart bill, but both knew the other members of the com¬ 
mittee would never consent to report a measure emanating from 
that source, and they contented themselves, with attempting to in¬ 
troduce as many of the conservative provisions into the committee 
bill as possible. 

During the last days of conference of the committee they even 
called to their aid Burton Hansen, general solicitor of the Chicago, 


232 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


Milwaukee and St. Paul railroad company. Each afternoon and 
evening for weeks Mr. Hanson met and labored with the committee 
• to perfect the measure that was to be presented to the senate as 
the final., finished work of that body. The result was a good;, 
wholesome measure, one that could have been improved in some re¬ 
spects, it is true, but for all that a bill that could be described as 
sane, safe, and calculated to accomplish the purposes for which it 
was designed. There were several criticisms of the bill made by 
conservatives when it was finally presented and these were made 
matters of record, but the objections were not fatal. 

The first senate committee “dummy” bill was introduced Feb. 
10 (Senate Journal, page 285). The Kreutzer bill was introduc¬ 
ed March 2 (S. J., page 404). The second committee bill came in 
on May 5 (S. J., page 974), and the North bill followed on May 
8 (S. J., page 977). Finnally the second committee substitute, 
the one that had been in progress of incubation all winter was in¬ 
troduced on May 16 by the chairman, Senator Hatton. 

The same day that the bill appeared from the committee room 
into the bright light of the senate chamber two amendments were 
offered, one by Senator Stevens and the other by Senator Rummel. 
Both amendments were designed to change the method of making 
up the commission, as they provided for an elective rather than 
an appointive body. On motion of Senator Hatton the bills and 
amendments were rereferred to the committee (S. J., page 1068). 

On the same day, at the evening session, the committee again 
reported the bill without change and recommended its passage (S. 
J., page 1070), and it was made a special order for 10 o’clock on 
May 18. 

When it came up under special order the forenoon session was 
consumed in consideration of the bill and in the disposal of a num¬ 
ber of proposed minor amendments and final action was postponed 
until the afternoon session. 

It was at this session that Senator Whitehead presented the 
eleven conservative amendments, all designed to strengthen, rather 
than weaken, the measure and which were all voted down by the 
majority. The vote on these amendments varied from 5 against 
26 to 10 against 21, the smaller number being the affirmative con¬ 
servative vote in each case. In no case did the conservative mem¬ 
bers of the committee support the proposed amendments, as the 
committee remained unanimous for the bill during the entire ses¬ 
sion. The highest number to vote for an amendment was on the 
first of the eleven amendments offered by Senator Whitehead. 
They were Senators Hagemeister, Kreutzer, North, Randolph, 
Rogers, Roehr, Smith, Whitehead, Wolff and Wright. On amend¬ 
ment No. 5 the only members voting affirmatively were Senators 
North, Smith, Whitehead, Wolff and Wright. 

At the evening session on the same day the bill was put on its 


Railway Regulation. 


233 


passage and received the unanimous vote of the senate, thirty-one 
senators voting yea. Senator Merton, a member of the committee 
who had aided in framing the bill, was prevented by illness from 
attending the session, but he had previously inserted in the record 
an announcement that he favored the measure and, were he able 
to be present, would have voted for its passage. There was one va¬ 
cancy, Senator Barney Eaton having retired from that body. 

This ended the contest over the railroad rate regulation issue. 
When the bill came up in the assembly the members of that body, 
having learned of the fate of their own measure, surrendered to 
circumstances and concurred. The governor attached his signa¬ 
ture and the Wisconsin railroad commission law was written into 
the statutes of the state. 


234 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XI. 

The Commission and Its Duties. 

Chapter 362, laws of 1905, establishing the Wisconsin railroad 
commission, provided for the appointment by the governor of three 
members of such commission, the appointments to be confirmed 
by the senate. From the beginning there had been more or less op¬ 
position to the creation of an appointive commission, the fear be¬ 
ing freely expressed that Gov. La Follette—who had in the mean¬ 
time been elected to the United States senate in place of Senator 
Joseph V. Quarles, and who had been holding back his ac¬ 
ceptance of the office until he could clear his desk of important 
matters demanding his attention—would avail himself of the op¬ 
portunity to appoint men to the new positions whose main qualifi¬ 
cations in his eyes would be disqualifications in the opinions of the 
objectors. 

A political commission was not desired by any large number of 
citizens and many of the men who had consistently supported the 
governor during his entire service in that position so far as their 
judgment would permit were unalterably opposed to such a body. 
Stalwart members and administration men like Senators Stout, 
Hatton, Hudnall, Wipperman, Bird, and others insisted that only 
such men be appointed to places on the commission as were quali¬ 
fied by character, mental endowments and training for the duties 
that would be required of them. 

While the bill was still pending before the legislature and after 
it had been enacted into law, several names of probable or possible 
appointees were mentioned that were not favorably received by a 
majority of the senate. As there is no disposition to establish a 
“black list” as a part of this review it is unnecessary to enumerate 
the names of those who were supposed at the time to be favored 
by Gov. La Follette for advancement to the new positions and who 
were not satisfactory to the senate. It is even impossible to prove 
that Gov. La Follette ever personally suggested any of the objec¬ 
tionable names, but when the suggestions came to the members of 
the senate whose support would be required before confirmation 
could be assured, they had all the appearance of “feelers.” 

Finally three names appeared among the suggestions that were 
entirely satisfactory to all members of the senate and Gov. La Fol¬ 
lette sent them in. They were immediately confirmed and the first 
commission was ready for work with John Barnes of Rhinelander 
—now a member of the Supreme court of the state—B. H. Meyer, 
professor of political economy of the University of Wisconsin, and 
Halford Erickson, state commissioner of labor and industrial sta¬ 
tistics, as members. Mr. Barnes was a democrat, his two associates 
being republicans. None of these appointments could be said to be 


/ 


Railway Regulation 


235 


political with the possible exception of that of Mr. Erickson, and 
he had served in the official family of the governor since the latter 
had assumed office in 1901. But Mr. Erickson was a skilled statis¬ 
tician, had given months to the study of railroad rates, and it was 
believed his experience would serve as a justification for his ap¬ 
pointment. 

Since the organization of the Wisconsin railroad commission the 
jurisdiction of that body has been enlarged and the scope of its 
operations greatly increased by a number of acts. The session of 
the legislature in 1907, facetiously termed “the long parliament” 
by some, enacted a number of statutes by which practically all the 
quasi-public corporations were placed under the supervision of the 
commission, and assigning to the commission new duties. It is 
unnecessary here to do little more than enumerate some of these 
acts, as a brief general explanation of the purposes of each will 
serve. 

The most important measure approved by that legislature was 
the one since known as the “public utilities law,” chapter 499, laws 
of 1907. This measure placed under the jurisdiction of the com¬ 
mission all companies furnishing to the public water, gas, elec¬ 
tricity, heat and telephone service. It subjected these companies 
• to control similar to that exercised by the commission over rail¬ 
roads. Other laws enacted during the same session may be enu¬ 
merated as follows: 

Chapter 576, laws of 1907, provides that no railroad or other 
public service corporation shall issue stocks or bonds without first 
applying to, and receiving from, the commission authority to 
do so. 

Chapter 454, laws of 1907, provides that no railroad company 
shall begin the construction of a new line or an extension without 
first securing from the commission a certificate of necessity and 
convenience. This law is designed to protect railroads already in 
the field, or in course of construction, from unjust and unnecessary 
competition. 

Chapter 575, laws of 1907, provides for an eight hour day for 
railway telegraph operators, and makes it unlawful for any com¬ 
pany to require or permit its operators to work more than eight 
consecutive hours, a period of sixteen hours intervening between 
the shifts. This was, and is an unnecessary and harmful law. 

Chapter 247, laws of 1907, designed to enable cities of the 
first-class (Milwaukee) to acquire, own and operate railway ter¬ 
minals, and to lease such terminals to railroads desiring to use 
them. In this instance the commission is to come in as arbitrator 
should the city and railroad company fail to agree as to the terms 

of the lease. 

Chapter 614, laws of 1907, requires railroads to furnish rea- 


236 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


sonably adequate telephonic communication with its offices, build¬ 
ings, and grounds. 

Chapter 352, laws of 1907, requires the railroads of the state 
to provide reasonably adequate spur tracks to manufacturing es¬ 
tablishments when imperatively necessary for the operation of 
sucbr enterprises or industries. 

Chapter 578, laws of 1907, provides for an indeterminate street 
railway franchise in cities. 

Chapter 291, laws of 1907, regulates the stringing of electric 
wires over railroad tracks. 

Chapter 335, laws of 1907, authorizes the Wisconsin River Im¬ 
provement company to construct and maintain a system of water 
reservoirs on the tributaries of the Wisconsin river, and to lease 
water power and to receive therefor a net revenue not to exceed 
6 per cent, the tolls to be fixed semi-annually by the commission. 
The company can issue no stocks or bonds without the approval of 
the commission, which must ascertain before the approval that 
the issue is to be at par, and in consideration of cash, labor or 
property at its true money value actually received by the company. 

Chapter 654, laws of 1907, is the “2 cent passenger fare law.” 
It should be explained that this law was enacted in the face of an 
opinion formally delivered by the Wisconsin railway commission 
to the effect that a reduction from 3 to 2 cents per mile for pas¬ 
senger fares was not justified by conditions. The commission 
explained its position at length and suggested that a reduction to 
2 1-2 cents would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. 

Members of the legislature thought otherwise and organized to 
push the 2 cent fare bill through under the leadership of Gov. J. O. 
Davidson and Lieut. Gov. W. D. Connor. It is probable that the 
bill would have been defeated had not the lieutenant governor 
labored strenuously for its passage. As it was it was once indefi¬ 
nitely postponed in the senate and was only saved by Senator 
James A. Wright, who moved a reconsideration at the psycho¬ 
logical moment, carried his point, and secured favorable action on 
the bill by the senate. It is a matter of record that all of the “Bob- 
ites” in both houses opposed the measure while the Davidson-Con- 
nor men supported and passed it. 

The published reports of the Wisconsin railroad commission in¬ 
dicate that that body has been busy since it was created, as may 
well be judged from the number and variety of its duties under 
the numerous statutes. It has employed a large force of assist¬ 
ants, experts and others, and has made an honest effort to render 
efficient and valuable services to the state. 

The commission has not attempted to make sweeping reduc¬ 
tions in freight rates. It has heard complaints whenever they were 
presented and ordered hearings in cases that could not be adjusted 
without formal proceedings. No citizen who has had a just cause 


Railway Regulation. 


237 


of complaint has been dismissed without a full and fair considera¬ 
tion of his case. Not only have complaints against the railroads 
and other quasi-public corporations been submitted to and deter¬ 
mined by the commission, but the public utility companies them¬ 
selves frequently have appealed to that body for the privilege of 
changing their schedules of charges for services rendered. 

The reason the commission did not cut and slash freight rates 
as many people were led to believe they would do, was because they 
found the system already established admirably adapted to the 
needs of traffic. The system of commodity and zone rates in force 
was not an arbitrary creation of the railroad traffic men. Ship¬ 
pers and carriers had co-operated in perfecting that system, their 
mutual experience and the requirements of commerce being de¬ 
termining factors in their negotiations. While it is true these 
rates at times were discriminatory with respect to places, such 
discriminations as were practiced are imperatively necessary to 
the growth of industries and the development of natural re¬ 
sources. Wisconsin can not claim to have a perfect system of 
freight rates, but the glaring inequalities and iniquitous extortions 
pictured by Gov. La Follette in 1903 and 1904 proved to be myths. 
They simply had no existence in reality. 

It is a significant fact that Halford Erickson, the man who 
prepared many of the tables used by Gov. La Follette in his public 
addresses and his messages to the legislature (see governors 7 mes¬ 
sage, Assembly Journal, 1903, page 50, second paragraph) is now 
and has been from the first a member of the Wisconsin railroad 
commission. Had it been true that Wisconsin producers were 
paying from 15 to 70 per cent more for freight carrying than the 
producers of Iowa (governor’s message, 1903, A. J., page 50) is it 
reasonable to suppose the shippers would not be aware of the fact 
and that they would not complain to the commission, of which Hal¬ 
ford Erickson, the governor’s statistician, is a member ? Is it 
reasonable to suppose, further, that Mr. Erickson himself, knowing 
of the statements made by the governor in his messages, would not 
have taken steps to have" the necessary complaints filed had those 
statements been based on facts? Gov. La Follette alleged that the 
average freight rates in Wisconsin were “a fraction less than 40 
per cent higher” than Iowa rates (Assembly Journal, 1903, page 
50). Rates have not been materially lowered since that time be¬ 
cause the statements made by the governor were untrue in sub¬ 
stance and in detail and no sweeping reductions were demanded or 
justified by conditions. It is true that some reductions have been 
made from time to time to meet the requirements of traffic. That, 
however, always has been the practice. Since the first railroad was 
built in this country the tendency of freight rates has been down- 

Wisconsin is a marvelously prosperous state with diversified 


( 


238 Political Reform in Wisconsin. 

✓ 

industries and it was a prosperous state when Gov. La Follette 
was working to revolutionize the freight rate system. This “broad 
and pulsing movement of energy/’ as W. D. Hoard described the 
industrial situation in 1903, remains unchanged. The freight 
rate system remains unchanged, also, except that the carriers as a 
rule deal with the people through a railroad commission. Fortu¬ 
nately that commission has been wise enough, has had sufficient 
common sense and economic learning, to refrain from overturning 
or attempting to overturn a system that was a growth, a develop¬ 
ment, the outcome of years of negotiation, adjustment, and a due 
consideration of mutual interests and the laws of commerce. 

But this is not what was promised to the people of Wisconsin 
by Gov. La Follette when he was conducting his “progressive” 
campaign. It is well that it is so. Had he succeeded in carrying 
out his program the “broad and pulsing movement of energy” 
would have been dealt a blow from which it would not soon have 
recovered. 


Kailway Regulatiqn. 


239 


CHAPTER XII. 

Railway Regulation in General. 

As lias been shown, Wisconsin has passed through a period of 
agitation which culminated in an attempt to take the entire man¬ 
agement of the business of railroad corporations out of the hands 
of the officers elected by the stockholders. The attempt failed. 
The plan that was adopted as a substitute for the one proposed has 
much to recommend it, albeit it has the disadvantage of shifting 
the responsibility for freight rates and railroad service from the 
railroad companies to the commission. Under the old system each 
shipper dealt directly with the officers of the carrier. When he had 
a complaint to make concerning either the service furnished or the 
rates charged, he went directly to the company and presented his 
arguments. 

Under the new system the state to a. large extent has been sub¬ 
stituted for the carrier and negotiations for rate adjustments, for 
adequate service, and the establishment of new rates for the pur¬ 
pose of encouraging development of natural resources, however 
extensive, are conducted through the commission. Under the old 
system all business was transacted between the two parties inter¬ 
ested ; under the present system a third party intervenes. The car¬ 
rier must now satisfy the commission; the shipper must go to the 
commission when he is dissatisfied. Formerly the carriers had 
thousands of individual shippers to deal with and they assumed 
full and complete responsibility for every rate, every service, and 
everj a'ct of every employe. Now much if not all of that responsi¬ 
bility is transferred to the shoulders of the commission. 

This is the policy that has been adopted in nearly all of the 
states of the union and by the congress of the United States. It 
is the result of agitation and an attempt to cure abuses that needed 
treatment. Railroad corporations and their methods of dealing 
with the public have been more widely discussed and more severely 
criticised than any other industry or class of property, particularly 
within the last ten years. The searchlight has been turned upon 
every detail of their business. Nothing has escaped the eyes of 
the investigators and the dusty records of the past have been un¬ 
covered and publicly discussed. Some criticisms were justified by 
the conditions disclosed. Practices which no business man would 
excuse—which no man ever attempted to excuse or paliate 
were brought to light. Secret rates, rebates, and unjust discrimi¬ 
nations were alleged in some cases and proved beyond question, 
and steps were taken promptly to find a remedy and apply if 
frequently to the lasting satisfaction and profit of the parties most 
severely criticised, the railroad corporations. 

This period of agitation has opened the door to the class of 


240 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


public men who keep their ears to the ground and govern their 
actions by what they hear. These are the statesmen who ride upon 
the crest of the wave of public opinion. They feel the public pulse 
and in their zeal to outbid each other for popularity they seize 
upon every opening for criticism, every opportunity to foster pre¬ 
judice and passion, every device by which obstacles to their own 
personal advancement may be torn down and removed from their 
path. 

It is to this element that the people of the nation owe much of 
the intemperate, destructive criticism of railroad corporations that 
has characterized the last decade. It is a serious matter when any 
industry or business that depends wholly upon the public favor 
for its life loses the confidence of the public, and this is peculiarly 
true of the railroads, because no other form of property is so easily 
reached by legislatures. The fact that the railroads have with¬ 
stood the attack without demoralization is a splendid indorsement 
of their stability. It is doubtful whether any other industry, not 
excepting the banks and other financial institutions of the country, 
strong as they are, could have lived through the storm of criticism 
to which the railroads have been subjected. 

It is to be regretted that public men and that portion of the 
press that assumes the responsibility of shaping public opinion 
upon great questions affecting the public weal do not always treat 
important subjects fairly. Political expediency receives too much 
consideration at times for the public good. It is not merely a 
question of how unwise laws may affect a corporation and its 
stockholders. It goes further than that. The people, the men 
who ship the freight, the producers and consumers, are equally 
interested. Production fails of its purpose if the goods are not de¬ 
livered to the consumer. We shall not succeed industrially unless 
the entire machinery of production and distribution work harmo¬ 
niously. Transportation must adjust itself to the needs of traffic 
or the traffic will not move. Unwise legislation affecting our 
transportation lines may destroy our commerce just as effectively 
and completely as privateering upon the high seas. It is impor¬ 
tant, therefore, that the people of this country learn caution in 
dealing with intricate matters of business while providing for the 
protection of their own interests. 

To some extent at least the railroad companies are them¬ 
selves responsible for the mistrust that political agitators have 
been able to create against them. They have not made it a practice 
to take the people into their confidence as much as they should 
have done. When they were attacked the rank and file of * the 
citizenry knew but little about the railroad business. The economic 
principles which should, and to a large extent do, govern railroad 
rate making were entirely unknown to a substantial majority of 
the voters. The railroad companies looked “big rich” and were 



Railway Regulation. 


241 


constantly suspected of making too much money, more than they 
had a right to make. 

Here in Wisconsin Gov. La Follette attacked the railroads 
with the general statement that their rates were all too high. It 
was a simple statement, one that could be readily grasped and 
mastered, and it had the advantage of precise alignment with a 
too prevalent popular prejudice. When he backed his statement 
with a few skillfully prepared tables of comparative rates, many 
people believed he had revealed to them a systematic and colossal 
robbery of which they were the innocent victims. It required only 
five words to say, “Their rates are too high,” and it placed the 
burden of proof on the accused corporations. When the defendants 
undertook to explain and justify the thousands of rates in effect 
at the time in this state it required volumes, and much of the mat¬ 
ter contained in the answer was not easily understood by men 
unfamiliar with transportation matters. The people had not been 
educated in the elements of rate making and the time given to 
convince them that the governors’ figures were misleading was all 
too short. If the railroad companies had previously given greater 
publicity to their business methods the impeachment filed against 
them in 1904 would not have deceived so many citizens. But, 
late as their defense was begun, it was sufficient to save Wisconsin 
from some of the mistakes made by several less conservative states. 

There is still another phase of the anti-railroad agitation that 
deserves mention here. The statement that secret rebates were 
being paid, or had been paid, to favored shippers was urged by po¬ 
litical speakers and the anti-railroad press as a stock argument in 
favor of the creation of a commission armed with the rate making 
power, when in fact this feature of the problem of railroad rate 
regulation had no legitimate place in the discussion. To make a 
rale is one thing; to maintain it is another. When the government* 
steps in to take charge of rate making it must deal with all the 
intricate questions that affect traffic. When it forbids secret re¬ 
bating it merely enacts a statute making it a crime for carriers 
to accept less than the published tariff rates. No commission is 
required to enforce that law. Grand juries and the courts may 
be relied upon to see that the law is respected. The fact is that 
commissions have been of very little service in enforcing the main¬ 
tenance of rates. Nor was the law applying to this branch of the 
government’s work of regulation materially strengthened by any 
statute enacted since the passage of the Elkins act of 1903. Prac¬ 
tically all the railroad prosecutions during the Roosevelt admin¬ 
istration, about which so much has been said and written, were 
based on the Elkins act. 

It can not truthfully be denied that, during the period of agi¬ 
tation that appears now to be subsiding, the public mind was thor¬ 
oughly aroused. Public opinion was based upon an immense 


242 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


amount of misinformation like that doled out to the people of 
Wisconsin in 1903 and 1904, and it is not surprising that there 
was a strong sentiment in favor of radical changes among the 
masses of the people who did not have direct business relations 
with the transportation companies. In their-response to what was, 
let it be hoped, a temporary sentiment, legislators in many in¬ 
stances have gone too far for the public good. It was right to cor¬ 
rect whatever evils existed in the transportation system; it was 
right to prevent by law combinations against the best interests of 
the people; it was right to do away with personal discriminations. 
The railways are the highways of commerce and should be open 
upon like terms to all doing business linger like conditions. The 
railroad rate schedule should be an open book. Every shipper 
has a right to know what his neighbor or competitor is paying. 
But to put the rate making power absolutely in the hands of com¬ 
missions created by law and close the door of the railway offices 
to the public was unnecessary and unwise. 

Every shipper knows that freight rates must adjust themselves 
to ever changing business conditions. The response to a demand 
for readjustment to fit new conditions must be prompt, more 
prompt than is possible in dealing with a governmental bureau 
bound in red tape. However, right or wrong, the new scheme, 
which in its present form is nothing more nor less than the product 
of political agitation, has been put in operation. Practically all 
the states in the union have created railroad commissions clothed 
with unlimited authority and armed with plenary power over the 
carriers, and the interstate commerce commission has complete 
control over interstate traffic. 

Under the new system the responsibility for the successful 
operation of the railway lines and the development of new traffic no 
longer rests upon the shoulders of the officers elected by the stock¬ 
holders. By placing the rate making power in the hands of gov¬ 
ernmental commissions that responsibility has been shifted to the 
government itself. The shipper and the stockholder must rely 
upon the same legally constituted authority, one for relief from 
excessive charges and the other for dividends upon his stock. It 
will require a wise—supernaturally wise—government to satisfy 
either. 

The new system, also, will prove a disappointment to the people 
who are indirectly responsible for its adoption, because it is not 
responsive to the needs of commerce and because it will not produce 
what was expected of it—a lower level of rates. Some states have 
caused a deal of trouble for the railroads without accomplishing 
any corresponding benefit to the public. The interstate commerce 
commission, as now constituted, will not be able to supervise 
interstate rates successfully because the task is too big for it. 
Partial supervision, like everything that is only half done, will 


Railway Regulation. 


243 


not produce satisfactory results, and it is now a physical impossi¬ 
bility for the federal commission to even half do the work of super¬ 
vision assigned to it by congress. 

If the government is determined to persist in the policy of 
exercising the authority over common carriers to the extent of 
fixing freight rates, rules and regulations which can not be changed 
except by the same authority, justice to the public in whose behalf 
the power is invoked demands that legislative bodies, particularly 
congress, shall establish a system of control that shall be so ade¬ 
quate and flexible as to be promptly responsive to the needs of com¬ 
merce while giving due regard to the rights and interests of the 
carriers. 

But the governments, state and national, will experience some 
difficulty in providing a bureau competent to do this work as it 
should be done. The railroads of the country employ approxi¬ 
mately 10,000 men in their traffic departments and these men do 
not work under an eight hour system. Included in this number 
are vice presidents, traffic managers, general freight and passenger 
agents and their assistants, and traveling agents. These men are 
paid salaries and they are expected to earn the money they receive. 
They are on the ground, at the place where the business is trans¬ 
acted, and they are in touch with the patrons of the roads who 
furnish the tonnage that keeps the trains moving. They are at 
all times intimately .and personally acquainted with the business, 
its needs, its possibilities of betterment, and they are expected to 
know and do know what must be done to develop new business 
along their lines. 

The interstate commerce commission as it is today organized, 
is made up of seven men, all finite beings with limited capacity, 
both physically and intellectually. They alone, have a right .to 
hear a complaint, make an order affecting a rate, and to legalize 
every rate promulgated. To be effective and useful to the people, 
it is necessary for them to have in their possession all the informa¬ 
tion regarding traffic possessed by. a railroad force of 10,000 men. 
As government bureaus are run in Washington, how many rate 
makers would be required adequately to do the traffic business for 
all the roads in the country ? 

The federal government and many of the states have under¬ 
taken too much or done too little. They have gene top far or not 
far enough. They have given to governmental bodies the rate 
making power and they have not created the machinery to ade¬ 
quately perform for the roads the service which they have undei- 
taken.’ There is reason to doubt the ability of the government to 
create and organize such a bureau, and, in the event of such failure, 
the door should once more be opened wide for negotiations between 
the carriers and their- patrons with the responsibility for adequate 


244 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


service and reasonable rates placed where it rightfully belongs— 
upon the shoulders of the transportation officers. 

In doing this no opening should be left for a return to practices 
that are, by common consent, unjust, oppressive, and destructive 
of legitimate competition in their tendency. Rebates, secret rates, 
and unjust personal discriminations should be strictly prohibited 
and, when practiced in defiance of law, should be visited with se¬ 
vere punishment. When this is done the requirements of com¬ 
merce are met. Until we shall determine to change our form of 
government, if that time ever comes, the more freedom we give for 
the natural laws of trade to operate in their own way the better 
it will be for the country. Business cannot thrive under unneces¬ 
sary and burdensome regulation. Industries conducted by men 
of highly developed business instincts and thorough business 
training find it difficult to succeed when surrounded and hedged in 
by unnatural, arbitrary restrictions. The small manufacturer and 
dealer of mediocre mental equipment is uniformly smothered by 
them. 


Railway Regulation. 


245 


CHAPTER XIII. 

An Ebb Tide of Settlement. 

There is every reason to believe the public will, in time, tire 
of the extravagant agitation on the subject of railroad regulation 
that has characterized recent years and men will then no longer be 
elected to public office upon the simple statement that they are 
opposed to the railroads. This subject will be taken up by the leg¬ 
islatures of the country with a view to solving the problem and 
settling all disputed points in a fair, reasonable, and effective man¬ 
ner. The public deserves to be, and must be, protected. It is 
entitled to good service at reasonable rates. From the viewpoint 
of the public the public benefit is of first importance; the stock¬ 
holder believes the returns on capital invested is of the greatest 
moment. The problem is to reconcile public and private rights 
without unduly subordinating the one to the other. 

A railroad has a right to charge a rate that will produce enough 
to pay its expenses and a fair return upon the value of its prop¬ 
erty. The bond and stock holders who furnish the money to build 
the road can not by any rule of justice be deprived of a fair return 
on their capital. A rate that is reasonable will produce in the ag¬ 
gregate a fair return upon the investment. Economically, a rail¬ 
road should not charge more; legally, it can not be required to 
charge less. The difficulty is in determining just how the expenses 
of operation, renewal, and income shall be distributed. 

The railroad officers, left to themselves, by giving close atten¬ 
tion to the requirements of the traffic originating on their re¬ 
spective lines, have been able to bring about an adjustment of rates 
which meet the requirements of traffic and at the same time pro¬ 
duce sufficient revenue to maintain their properties, and, in many 
cases, pay dividends to the investors. They accomplished this be¬ 
cause they had the power of making such charges for their serv¬ 
ices as each commodity would bear. Discriminations between per¬ 
sons was not a necessary factor in this distribution of charges. 
Discriminations between places, however, was an absolute necessity, 
and it is at this point that the government will fail. Under the 
law there can ultimately be no discrimination between places. 
Every shipping point will demand that it be accorded every ad¬ 
vantage of geographical location. There is only one form of tariff 
which a government can establish and maintain and be a just gov¬ 
ernment, and that is a distance tariff. That such a system would 
overturn our industrial and commercial organizations must be con¬ 
ceded. 

It is a consideration of these facts that will result in a change 
of sentiment on the part of the general public and they are even 
now causing fair minded public men who have no interest but 


246 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


the public weal at heart to hesitate about following the radical 
leaders to the extreme of their demands upon the government for 
railroad regulation. The citizens who make up that great mass of 
voters called the “plain people” are beginning to learn that they 
tan not always rely upon the unsupported word of agitators who 
want office. The fine frenzy with which the office seeking reformer 
expounds his belief in the total and inexcusable depravity of promi¬ 
nent men engaged in private business and as officers of large in¬ 
dustrial enterprises, while at the same time his own impeccable 
purity is implied, does not carry so much weight as formerly. Blind 
leaders of the blind never were popular, and once the blindness 
of the leader is established, his occupation is gone for all time. 

But, even though public sentiment on the subject of unneces¬ 
sarily drastic and obstructive railway regulation is destined to 
change, is already changing in fact, there is still need of educative 
work on the part of clear sighted, right minded citizens, for the 
political agitator, the disturber of the public peace, is always in the 
field. When one subject of controversy that permits of the pe¬ 
culiar methods of treatment most dearly loved by the extremist 
becomes worn out he turns with cheerful alacrity to another that 
will serve his ends. Wisconsin has passed through a succession 
of spasms of this character. It started with the primary election, 
then shifted to taxation, and wound up with railroad regulation. 
Each was used in its turn to convince the people that designing 
men had trampled upon their liberties, robbed them of their sub¬ 
stance, and retarded the development of their state. 

Wisconsin citizens now know, or ought to know, how much 
truth there was in all the lurid campaign literature and still more 
fiery campaign oratory indulged in by the self-appointed reformers 
of the last decade, but there is always danger of a new reform 
issue becoming popular. In this connection the word “reform” 
is used to designate all political movements that are mainly sound 
and contain scarcely enough sense to serve as a flavor. The word 
has been given this meaning by men who seek political advance¬ 
ment, not because of their recognized ability, not in return for 
distinguished public services, not because they love the people with 
the consuming passion they simulate, but merely that they may 
enjoy the honors and emoluments incidental to public office. 

These are the men who preach the doctrine of suspicion and 
hate. Confidence inspires confidence; distrust breeds distrust. The 
one leads to fair dealing; the other to wars of extermination. If 
politics could be entirely divorced from business it might be well 
for the agitators to monopolize that field entirely and hurl the 
javelins of mimic rage at each other indefinitely; but, unfortu¬ 
nately, the state and national governments have shown a disposi¬ 
tion of late to do more than merely exercise a supervisory power 
over the industrial activities of the country. Thus it has come 


Railway Regulation. 


247 


about that governmental policies mean something more than the 
protection of the citizen’s life and property and the maintenance 
of the public peace. They mean a direct, positive, and it may be, 
an unwarranted and uncalled for interference with the business 
relations of every citizen with his neighbor. Under these condi¬ 
tions it is not safe to surrender the political field entirely to the 
self-seeking men of political war who shed language instead of 
blood in defense of their alleged opinions and only succeed in 
poisoning the public mind. Even when they succeed they fall, for 
they are never able to redeem their promises. * 

It is not intended here to convey the idea that it is better to 
meekly submit to wrongs than to take up arms against them. Where 
the wrongs are real they should be met with telling protests. When 
a man has an opinion that is worth defending it is his duty to 
defend it in the strongest possible manner. But violence is not a 
proof of strength and personal abuse is invariably a demonstration 
of weakness; either weakness in the man who is guilty of using 
such a weapon or in the cause he represents. 

If our form of government shall endure it will not be through 
the aid and counsel of men whose sole aim it is to stir up factional 
strife, to array one section of the country or one class of citizens 
against another. The social democrats are right when they say their 
success depends upon the awakening of “class consciousness,” and 
every public man or private citizen who lends his assistance to such 
an awakening is contributing to the cause of socialism, it matters 
not whether that man be a laborer, a millionaire, or a reform agi¬ 
tator. A war to the finish between social classes spells socialism 
in the end, and socialism spells the enslavement of the people to the 
government and the establishment of the most oppressive form of 
bureaucracv. 


248 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XIV. 

The Opposing Spirits. 

The passion for regulating everything and everybody is born 
of the old, unlovely spirit of intolerance against which the Chris¬ 
tian church has been preaching for more than 1900 years and of 
which it has too frequently furnished striking examples. In all 
that time, and in all the history of the world before the beginning 
of the Christian era, it is impossible to find one case where the 
spirit of intolerance in active operation has not led to wrong, mis¬ 
ery, oppression, and, in too many cases, to wars and revolutions. 
It has overthrown governments. It has dragged martyrs to the 
stake, uncrowned kings, sent popes into exile, severed friendships, 
broken up homes, driven high minded, able men from* public life, 
and marked its progress through the ages with blood and tears. 

This is not an attractive picture, but it has the merit of being 
true to life. But there is another, a brighter side to human nature, 
without which there would be no hope for the race. Whether men 
acknowledge openly their belief in and veneration for the Golden 
Rule, or profess to sneer at and flippantly misquote it, there is deep 
down in the heart of every civilized man a knowledge of the facr 
that it embodies the most profound philosophy ever uttered by 
human lips, divinely inspired. 

The Golden Rule and the spirit of intolerance are at opposite 
poles; there is nothing in common between them. One leads to 
peace, the other to strife and discord. For this reason the former 
is the more practical of the two. From the beginning of time, 
while intolerance has been brewing poisons and sharpening swords, 
brotherly love has been binding up wounds and wiping away tears. 
While intolerance has been sending man against man in the death 
grapple, brotherly love has been bridging gulfs and bringing men 
together in peace and accord. Of all systems of philosophy the 
Golden Rule is the most practical and the best calculated for use 
as a law of conduct in the business and political worlds. 

Let those who doubt the soundness of this position think for 
themselves what would happen if a new and rational reform in 
this respect were to be adopted and put into operation by business 
men and politicians. There would still be principles of govern¬ 
ment over which parties would contend. There would be compe¬ 
tition in the business world. But there would be no more bitter 
personal antagonisms. Men who differed in opinion would not 
charge each other with deliberate dishonesty. They would sup¬ 
port their opinions with argument, not personal abuse. They 
would not seek to profit by engendering social unrest and class 
hatred. In the business world the rule of toleration would be 
equally profitable—as a matter of fact there is more honesty, fair 


Railway Regulation. 


249 


dealing and decency among business and professional men today 
than nursers of grouches could be made to believe. 

.The belief in and advocacy of world wide toleration will be 
branded by many as an impractical ideal, a dream, but the man 
who believes in and strives to the best of his ability to live up 
to that ideal is facing in the right direction. What right has a 
man who refuses to subscribe to the doctrine of toleration to call 
himself a “progressive?” The man who is inspired by the spirit 
of intolerance, who preaches the doctrine of distrust, suspicion,' 
enmity, hate, has turned his back upon progress and is facing the 
dark ages before the birth of civilization. 

Nothing here is designed to counsel weakness, surrender to 
wrong, or a namby pamby sentimentalism that lacks the back¬ 
bone to stand up for rights. Man may be strong and honest at 
the same time. He may put himself and keep himself beyond the 
reach of just criticism, where he will have little use for the “short 
and ugly word” without the sacrifice of one jot of that virile man¬ 
hood which all the world admires. He may express opinions, 
openly and fearlessly, and support them by argument without 
branding those who differ with him as fools or knaves. He may do 
anything and everything that an honest, fearless, just man can 
do under our present democratic form of government. The only 
thing he loses is that which no man is willing to acknowledge he 
possesses—the spirit of intolerance, the right to hate his neighbor, 
the right to think and speak evil of all who refuse to accept his 
judgment as final. 

During all the time the railway rate regulation subject was be¬ 
fore the legislature of Wisconsin there was one man, not a politician, 
whose services were of inestimable value to the people of this state. 
He was not a member of the legislature; he held no commission 
from the people to protect their interests; he had no political ambi¬ 
tion, it never having occurred to him to seek official advancement. 
He was, in fact, an officer of one of the large railroad corporations. 

That man is Burton Hanson, general solicitor for the Chicago, 
Milwaukee and St. Paul railroad, and he appeared before the legis¬ 
lature as a representative of that corporation. During practically 
the entire season of 1903, and again in 1905, Mr. Hanson re¬ 
mained in Madison and aided by his knowledge of the law and of 
the railroad business, first, in defeating the attempt to engraft 
upon our system of laws the arbitrary, illogical railway regulation 
statutes of Iowa and Texas; and second, in framing a law that has 
been pronounced by many practical men the best railroad regula¬ 
tion law in the country. 

The two main causes that contributed to the defeat of the bill 
presented to the legislature in 1903 as the administration measure 
for the regulation of railroads were the address delivered by Mr. 
Hanson before the legislative committee on railroads- and the 


250 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


meeting of business men and shippers held in Madison to protest 
against the enactment of such a radical law. In his address Mr. 
Hanson answered completely the arguments advanced by Gov. La 
Follette in support of the bill, and he also demonstrated the inac¬ 
curacy and worthlessness of the figures contained in the governor’s 
tables, which were advanced as a reason for the passage of the bill. 
That address was a model of forceful, but temperate, argument, a 
clear statement of facts and figures, and a convincing comparison 
of the conditions then obtaining in Wisconsin and neighboring 
states with respect to railway transportation. This address, to¬ 
gether with the almost daily advice and counsel given to members 
of the legislature and others who were contending against the de¬ 
struction of Wisconsin’s commercial and industrial systems, contrib¬ 
uted more to the defeat of the bill than any other one cause. 

In 1905 Mr. Hanson again appeared in Madison as the repre¬ 
sentative of the Milwaukee road and again he rendered valuable 
services in the cause of the people. He not only aided in the defeat 
of the radical assembly bill, but he assisted in framing the measure 
that finally was enacted into law. Had he been disposed to play 
politics, to engage in sharp practices, he would have contented 
himself with assuming an attitude of opposition. He would have 
permitted a statute to be enacted that would have been vulnerable, 
one he could have taken to the courts and killed there. But when 
it was suggested that he adopt this course he replied that his ad¬ 
vice had been asked and it was his duty to give to the legislative 
committee and individual members of the legislature the full bene¬ 
fit of his knowledge of the subject under consideration. 

Ho man in the middle west was better equipped to render val¬ 
uable assistance to the committee than was Burton Hanson. A 
man of profound legal knowledge, a specialist in transportation 
matters, a clear headed, logical thinker, and a calm, dispassionate 
student of industrial conditions and needs, Mr. Hanson was pre¬ 
eminently the man for the occasion. For weeks and months he 
counseled with members of the committee individually, and, 
finally, he met with the committee as a body daily, and, section by 
section, he went over the proposed law with them and suggested 
improvements, amendments, additions and eliminations. The re¬ 
sult was a law that could not be attacked in the courts with any 
hope of success, a statute, too, that has been commended by econ¬ 
omists, traffic men and shippers in all parts of the country. 

And all this was accomplished without the aid of red fire or 
band music. In his quiet, gentlemanly, sincere, unostentatious 
manner Mr. Hanson went about the performance of his duties, or 
what he considered his duties, without fuss or feather, and he did 
unto others as he would have others do unto him. His ripe judg¬ 
ment, the result of years of experience in transportation matters, 
his exceptional mental attainments, his knowledge of the principles 


Kailway Regulation. 


251 


of law, all were placed at the disposal of the committee without 
reservation of any character. 

Burton Hanson is entitled to the gratitude of the people of Wis¬ 
consin for the part he played in the events that led up to the en¬ 
actment of the Wisconsin railroad commission law, and in saying 
this no thought of detracting from the credit due to others is en¬ 
tertained. The members of the committee are to be thanked for 
the broad minded policy they adopted when they called in this 
railroad attorney to aid them in the work committed to them. The 
attorneys and traffic men for the other roads and experienced ship¬ 
pers gave able assistance. But the high minded, unselfish con¬ 
ception of duty which animated Mr. Hanson is an inspiration to 
others placed in similar positions that should be kept before the 
eyes and in the minds of the people. 


262 


Political Reform in Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER XV. 

In Conclusion. 

It has been part of the system adopted by an element of aspiring 
politicians in this state in recent years, whenever a man advocates 
reason in dealing with corporations and especially railroads, to 
point to him as a subservient creature of wealth and an enemy of 
the common people. They act upon the theory that it is easy to 
convince a majority of the voters that the people and the corpora¬ 
tions can have no interests in common. Whenever a public man or 
a prominent private citizen advocates a course that is practical and 
wise, but not in harmony with what they regard as their political 
necessities, he is promptly charged with fostering selfish interests 
and placed in the so-called favored class. This is done to destroy 
his influence with the mass of the voters. Wisconsin’s recent political 
history is full of examples of prominent men who have been 
maligned and slandered because they had convictions that were in 
opposition to the “reform” propaganda, and had the courage to 
state them. 

How much longer this system can be worked successfully is 
problematical. The answer must come from the people. We shall 
not expect it until they have learned that the leadership of extrem¬ 
ists is unwise, unsafe, and in the end will be harmful to them. 
The people will do well to study the motives of ppliticians as well 
as the measures which they advocate, because if they are not 
deceived in the former they will be less apt to be deceived by the 
latter. 

Professional politicians make it their business to have new issues 
to dangle before the eyes of the people at every election. It serves 
the double purpose of directing public attention to them and divert¬ 
ing attention from those issues that have been worn threadbare or 
have proven unprofitable and disappointing to the people when put 
into operation. A statesman is a leader. A politician is a follower. 
A statesman educates public sentiment. A politician trims his sails 
to catch every breeze. A statesman studies the principles of gov¬ 
ernment and bases his official acts on his knowledge of those 
principles. A politician studies the temper of his constituents and 
adjusts his course to popular clamor. A statesman aims to be right. 
A politician strives to be popular. 

“The great difference between the real statesman and the pre¬ 
tender is, that the one sees into the future, while the other 
regards only the present; the one lives by the day, and acts on 
expediency; the other acts on enduring principles and for im¬ 
mortality.’ ’— Burke. 

This review has dealt with three important questions. Each 
has occupied the political stage in its time and each has been rep¬ 
resented to the people as a matter of momentous importance to 


Railway Regulation. 


253 


them. In 1902 the primary election law was presented to the 
voters and the finger of scorn was pointed at every man who had 
the courage to oppose it. It is now an acknowledged failure. Tax 
reform followed. Every man who dared to raise his voice against 
the demonstrably unwise schemes advocated by the professional 
reformers was promptly and without ceremony represented to the 
people as a tax dodger or a tool of corporations. The subject was 
carried to a point where there were no more political dividends in 
further agitating it and it was then dropped. The result is we 
have doubled the income of the state but we have not given any 
relief to the overburdened taxpayer. The property that carried the 
heaviest load of taxes before the agitation is in most cases paying 
more than it ever did before. The railroad rate question has been 
fully discussed in this review and requires no further comment. The 
unprejudiced reader will hardly be able to avoid the conclusion 
that after all there is a wide difference between honest reform for 
the improvement of government and the reforms invented to pro¬ 
mote political interests. 
























* 

' 












■ ■ f 








‘ - 





















































































• i 
























' ' 



















